Commutator theory for congruence modular varieties

Commutator Theory for Congruence Modular Varieties Ralph Freese and Ralph McKenzie Contents Introduction 1 Chapter 1...

Author: Ralph Freese | Ralph McKenzie

6 downloads 698 Views 1MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Commutator Theory for Congruence Modular Varieties Ralph Freese and Ralph McKenzie

Contents Introduction

1

Chapter 1. The Commutator in Groups and Rings Exercise

7 10

Chapter 2. Universal Algebra Exercises

11 19

Chapter 3. Several Commutators Exercises

21 22

Chapter 4. One Commutator in Modular Varieties;Its Basic Properties 25 Exercises 33 Chapter 5. The Fundamental Theorem on Abelian Algebras Exercises

35 43

Chapter 6. Permutability and a Characterization ofModular Varieties 47 Exercises 49 Chapter 7. The Center and Nilpotent Algebras Exercises

53 57

Chapter 8. Congruence Identities Exercises

59 68

Chapter 9. Rings Associated With Modular Varieties: Abelian Varieties 71 Exercises 87 Chapter 10. Structure and Representationin Modular Varieties 89 1. Birkhoff-Jónsson Type Theorems For Modular Varieties 89 2. Subdirectly Irreducible Algebras inFinitely Generated Varieties 92 3. Residually Small Varieties 97 4. Chief Factors and Simple Algebras 102 Exercises 103 Chapter 11. Joins and Products of Modular Varieties

105

Chapter 12. Strictly Simple Algebras

109

iii

iv

CONTENTS

Chapter 13. Mal’cev Conditions for Lattice Equations Exercises

115 120

Chapter 14. A Finite Basis Result

121

Chapter 15. Pure Lattice Congruence Identities

135

Related Literature

137

Solutions To The Exercises Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Chapter 13

143 143 143 144 146 148 152 154 157 161 161

Bibliography

165

Index

169

Introduction In the theory of groups, the important concepts of Abelian group, solvable group, nilpotent group, the center of a group and centralizers, are all defined from the binary operation [x, y] = x−1 y −1xy. Each of these notions, except centralizers of elements, may also be defined in terms of the commutator of normal subgroups. The commutator [M, N] (where M and N are normal subgroups of a group) is the (normal) subgroup generated by all the commutators [x, y] with x ∈ M, y ∈ N. Thus we have a binary operation in the lattice of normal subgroups. This binary operation, in combination with the lattice operations, carries much of the information about how a group is put together. The operation is also interesting in its own right. It is a commutative, monotone operation, completely distributive with respect to joins in the lattice. There is an operation naturally defined on the lattice of ideals of a ring, which has these properties. Namely, let [J, K] be the ideal generated by all the products jk and kj, with j ∈ J and k ∈ K. The congruity between these two contexts extends to the following facts: [M, M] is the smallest normal subgroup U of M for which M/U is a commutative group; [J, J] is the smallest ideal K of J for which the ring J/K is a commutative group; that is, a ring with trivial multiplication. Now it develops, amazingly, that a commutator can be defined rather naturally in the congruence lattices of every congruence modular variety. This operation has the same useful properties that the commutator for groups (which is a special case of it) possesses. The resulting theory has many general applications and, we feel, it is quite beautiful. In this book we present the basic theory of commutators in congruence modular varieties and some of its strongest applications. The book by H. P. Gumm [41] offers a quite different approach to the subject. Gumm developed a sustained analogy between commutator theory and affine geometry which allowed him to discover many of the basic facts about the commutator. We take a more algebraic approach, using some of the shortcuts that Taylor and others have discovered. 1

2

INTRODUCTION

Historical remarks. The lattice of normal subgroups of a group, with the commutator operation, is a lattice ordered monoid. It is a residuated lattice (in G. Birkhoff’s terminology) because (a : b) (equal to the largest lattice element x such that [b, x] ≤ a) always exists. The concept of a lattice ordered monoid, which arose naturally in ideal theory, has been studied by Krull, Birkhoff, Ward and Dilworth, and numerous others. (See Birkhoff’s Lattice Theory, Ch. XIV, especially Section 8 on commutation lattices.) The theory presented in this book does not lie in the tradition of these ongoing axiomatic studies, although it may throw some new light on the subject. The worth of our theory stems, rather, from its very broad applicability combined with depth. We shall be working within a broad class of algebras of diverse kinds, with a general definition of commutator which turns out to determine a unique operation over every algebra. The commutator proves to be an excellent tool for arriving at deep algebraic results in this very general setting. The first commutator theory approaching this level of generality was created by the English mathematician J. D. H. Smith, and presented in his 1976 book Mal’cev Varieties. Smith dealt with an important subclass of the congruence modular varieties, namely the varieties in whose algebras all congruences permute, which he called Mal’cev Varieties. His theory rapidly evolved into the theory we shall present. The work was done chiefly by the German mathematicians J. Hagemann and C. Herrmann, and presented int their papers Hagemann-Herrmann [44] and Herrmann [45]. Many important details and simplifications were worked out later by other people, notably by H. P. Gumm and W. Taylor. General remarks. The operation we shall study is a binary operation defined for pairs of congruences hθ, ψi of an algebra and giving another congruence [θ, ψ]. This operation can be easily defined for congruences of any algebra, but it seems to be especially well behaved only for algebras in congruence modular varieties. Two of its properties contribute most obviously to its strength in applications. Let A be an algebra in a congruence modular variety, L be its lattice of congruences and θ and ψ be two members of L. If the commutator of θ and ψ is as large as the theory allows it to be – that is, if it is identical with the intersection of θ and ψ – then in the neighborhood of this pair of congruences L is very like a distributive lattice. Whenever ψ ≤ ψ1 ∨ ψ2 , for example, then θ ∧ ψ ≤ (θ ∧ ψ1 ) ∨ (θ ∧ ψ2 ) (where ∨ and ∧ denote join and meet in L). There is a sophisticated way to state these facts. Consider this binary relation on L: θ ∼ ψ if and only if θ ∨ ψ is solvable over θ ∧ ψ. This is an equivalence relation and it

INTRODUCTION

3

respects commutators and lattice joins and meets. The quotient lattice L/ ∼ is a distributive commutation lattice in which [α, β] = α ∧ β. We may remark that at one extreme end of the spectrum of congruence modular varieties, the congruence distributive varieties are precisely those in which the commutator is identical with the intersection in all congruence lattices. The second important property concerns Abelian congruences. In a quotient algebra B = A/[θ, ψ], the congruence β = θ ∧ ψ/[θ, ψ] is an Abelian congruence, that is [β, β] = 0. This implies that each equivalence class of β is an Abelian group and every operation of the algebra B, with its variables restricted to range over fixed equivalence classes of β is a group homomorphism (plus a constant). In the extreme case, θ = ψ = 1A (= A × A) and [1A , 1A ] = 0A . The algebra A is then polynomially equivalent to a module over a ring. Our presentation of commutator theory is essentially different from earlier published accounts. Hagemann and Herrmann defined the commutator of two congruences on an algebra A, and derived its properties, by applying the modular law in a quite nontrivial fashion to congruences on subalgebras of A, A2 and A3 . A congruence of A is itself an algebra (a subalgebra of A2 ), and in fact they dealt mainly with congruences on congruences of A. Gumm’s approach to commutator theory (in [38], [40] and [40]) is heavily flavored with geometric analogies developed in his earlier papers [36] and [39], and is closer in spirit to what Smith did. Gumm made good use of A. Day’s derived operations, whose existence for a variety is equivalent to congruence modularity. Our path to commutator theory is more direct than either of these. We define the commutator in any algebra by considering the set of all term operations of the algebra. Then assuming that algebra belongs to a congruence modular variety, we use Day’s operations to present a set of generators for [θ, ψ]. Following this result, the basic properties of commutators are easily derived. This book is an expanded version of a manuscript entitled The commutator, an overview that we used as the text for a week long workshop on commutator theory held at the Puebla Conference on Universal Algebra and Lattice Theory in January 1982. The first chapter of the present manuscript uses groups and rings to motivate the definition of the commutator. The second chapter gives a brief introduction to the results and definitions of universal algebra which will be required later. It also gives a proof of Day’s characterization of varieties with modular congruence lattices. In the course of the proof we prove two useful lemmas. The third chapter gives several definitions of the commutator and proves some simple results

4

INTRODUCTION

which do not depend on congruence modularity. The fourth chapter shows that all of these definitions of the commutator are equivalent in congruence modular varieties and proves some of the fundamental facts about the commutator. The fifth chapter proves Herrmann’s fundamental result on Abelian algebras and introduces Gumm’s 3-ary term and his characterization of Abelian congruences. The sixth chapter proves various permutability theorems and gives Gumm’s new Mal’cev condition for congruence modularity. The seventh chapter gives several results on nilpotent algebras, including a theorem describing the structure of such algebras. A result used in Burris-McKenzie [8], whose proof has not appeared in print before, is included. It is Proposition 7.8 (which was 8.7 in Burris-McKenzie). Chapter 8 contains some results relating to congruence identities. These are identities in the join, meet and commutator operations satisfied by the congruence lattices. This subject is in its infancy and the results presented are far from representing a complete theory. The blocks of an Abelian congruence of an algebra A in a (modular) variety V behave very much like modules over a ring built from the polynomials of A. Chapter 9 defines rings naturally associated with V. In our 1981 manuscript we only considered one ring for each V, which we denoted R(V). In the present version we extend this concept in two ways. First we allow constants so that the ring is built from polynomials, not just terms. Secondly we form “matrix” rings. In this manner we are able to capture the polynomial action between different blocks of an Abelian congruence, not just the action within one block. Some strong structural connections between the module associated with an Abelian congruence and the algebra are proved. In the case that the variety consists solely of Abelian algebras the connection is especially strong. The last part of the chapter establishes the exact connection. In this case the algebra is polynomially equivalent to the module in a very specific way. Chapter 10 uses the commutator theory to prove a variety of problems on structure and representation in modular varieties. The first section presents some generalizations of Jonsson’s theorem to modular varieties. The second section proves various stronger results for finitely generated varieties. The third section uses some of the previous material and some results from Chapter 9 to prove authors’ characterization of finite algebras which generate a residually small variety. The fourth section defines the concept of chief factors and shows that if A is a finite algebra then the chief factors which occur in the variety generated

INTRODUCTION

5

by A have size bounded by |A|. As a corollary we have that the simple algebras in the variety generated by A have the size at most |A|. Chapter 11 deals with joins and products of modular varieties. It is shown that for two such varieties, V0 and V1 , if the subdirectly irreducible algebras in Vi have cardinality at most λi , i = 0, 1, then the subdirectly irreducible algebras in the join of those varieties have the cardinality at most λ0 λ1 . A generalization of a theorem of Herrmann on products of varieties is also given. A finite simple algebra having no nontrivial subalgebras is called strictly simple. Chapter 12 deals with varieties generated by such algebras. We use the commutator theory to give relatively easy proofs of some of the results of D. Clark and P. Krauss. Chapter 13 studies Mal’cev conditions corresponding to the satisfaction by congruence lattices of certain lattice identities. Previously only the distributive law, the modular law, and the two trivial identities were known to have a Mal’cev condition. This chapter displays an infinite class of identities defined by Mal’cev conditions. M. Vaughan-Lee has shown that a finite nilpotent algebra of prime power order having an equationally defined constant has a finite basis for its identities (assuming, of course that there are only finitely many basic operations). Chapter 14 proves this without the assumption that there is an equationally defined constant. Exercises are given at the ends of most chapters. A great deal of important material is included in these exercises and the reader should at least glance at them. They include interesting examples and applications, as well as significant theorems. We have tried to avoid leaving routine calculations as exercises, and indeed some of the exercises require a substantial amount of ingenuity. But do not worry, you can always cheat: all of the solutions appear in the back. Because of this we have felt justified in using the results of the exercises. The authors wish to thank C. Bergman, G. Birkhoff, A. Day, HeinzPeter Gumm, W. Lampe and J. B. Nation for the interest and assistance they rendered us at several stages in the preparation of this manuscript.

CHAPTER 1

The Commutator in Groups and Rings Let G be a group and let L(G) denote its lattice of normal subgroups. Suppose that M, N ∈ L(G). The group commutator (commutator of M and N), written as [M, N], is the subgroup of G generated by all element [m, n] = m−1 n−1 mn, with m ∈ M and n ∈ N. It is a normal subgroup of G. We thus have a binary operation, called commutator, acting on normal subgroups. (The usual operations of a lattice are join and meet, here denoted by ∨ and ∧.) If π : G → G′ is an onto homomorphism, then L(G′ ) is naturally isomorphic to an interval in L(G) consisting of the members that lie above the kernel of π. We can easily determine commutators of normal subgroups in G′ if we know the commutators of their inverse images in G. (See (2) below.) Thus we are going to consider the commutator as an operation not just in one lattice L(G), but rather as a global operation, defined at once in all such lattices. The following properties are easily verified for M, N, Ni ∈ L(G), i ∈ I, and π : G ։ G′ a surjection. (1) (2) (3) (4)

[M, N] ⊆ M ∩ N [π(M), π(N)] = π([M, N]) [M, N] = [N, M] [M,

_

Ni ] =

i∈I

(5)

(6)

_

[M, Ni ]

i∈I

H = [M, N]

is the least normal subgroup of G such that in G/H every element of M/H commutes with every element of N/H. The next property is not quite so obvious. The commutator is the greatest binary operation defined on L(G) for every group G and satisfying (1) and (2). 7

8

1. THE COMMUTATOR IN GROUPS AND RINGS

To prove this, we suppose that C is another binary operation defined in L(G) for every group G and that C satisfies (1) and (2). Let M, N ∈ L(G) for some group G. We shall show that C(M, N) ⊆ [M, N]. To do this, we define four subgroups of G × G: G(M) = {hx, yi : x ∈ G, x−1 y ∈ M} ∆ = {hx, yi : x ∈ N, x−1 y ∈ [M, N]} B = {hx, 1i : x ∈ [M, N]} M1 = {hx, 1i : x ∈ M}. Now one can verify that ∆, B, M1 ∈ L(G(m)). [This we leave to the reader. The fact that ∆ ∈ L(G(m)) is what makes the proof work.] The projection homomorphism π of G(M) at the first coordinate maps G(M) homomorphically onto G. Moreover, we obviously have that π(∆) = N π(B) = [M, N] π(M1 ) = M From the fact that C satisfies (1) we get that C(M1 , ∆) ⊆ M1 ∧ ∆ ⊆ B. To finish the argument we use (2): C(M, N) = π(C(M1 , ∆)) ⊆ π(B) = [M, N]. In the most general varieties of algebras, there is no such thing as a normal subgroup. The kernels of homomorphisms must be identified with congruences. For such a variety, we can replace normal subgroups by congruences in the formulation of (1) and (2), and consider binary congruence operations defined globally (in the congruence lattice of every algebra). It is quite easy to see that there must be a greatest such operation satisfying (1) and (2). We shall not be able to say very much in general about that operation. However, for congruence modular varieties we shall be able to say a great deal. But we need a better way to come to grips with the operation. Our approach in this book is to find a formulation of the property (5) which is capable of generalization to all algebras, and use that to build a more constructive definition of a general commutator. Fortunately, this idea works out beautifully for congruence modular varieties. We get a commutator defined by an abstraction of (5), which satisfies (1) and (2), in fact is


9

the greatest operation satisfying (1) and (2), and which also satisfies (3) and (4). Our constructive definition of a commutator occurs in the third chapter. It is rather hard to see statement (5) behind that definition. The most we can do to motivate it is to work through the equivalence of the two for groups. That is what we shall now do. Let G be a group and let M, N ∈ L(G) be such that [M, N] = {1}. This means of course that every member of M commutes with every member of N. It implies that the term operations of the group, when applied to elements of M∪N, take a simple form. Let t(x1 , . . . , xp , y1 , . . . , yq ) be any term operation of p + q variables. It can be expressed in the form t(x1 , . . . , xp , y1 , . . . , yq ) = u1 . . . uk −1 −1 −1 where each ui ∈ {x1 , x−1 1 , . . . , xp , xp , y1 , y1 , . . . , yq , yq }. Now if m = hm1 , . . . , mp i ∈ Mp and n = hn1 , . . . , nq i ∈ Nq , then since mi commutes with nj , we have

t(m, n) = r(m) · s(n) for a certain pair of term operations r(x) and s(y) which depend only on the term t (and not on any other parameters of the situation we are considering). Now let t(x, y), r(x) and s(y) be terms related as above, and let 1 m , m2 ∈ Mp and n1 , n2 ∈ Nq . By substituting these elements for the variables in t(x, y), we obtain four elements of the group, and we arrange them in the form of a matrix t(m1 , n1 ) t(m1 , n2 ) t11 t12 ′ (5 ) = t(m2 , n1 ) t(m2 , n2 ) t21 t22 Note that the elements in each column of this matrix belong to one coset of M, and the elements in each row of this matrix belong to one coset of N. Since t11 t12 r(m1 ) · s(n1 ) r(m1 ) · s(n2 ) = t21 t22 r(m2 ) · s(n1 ) r(m2 ) · s(n2 ) we have the following bi-implications: (5′′ )

t11 = t12 ↔ t21 = t22 t11 = t21 ↔ t12 = t22

It is this simple property that we shall exploit to make the general definition of the commutator. Our assumption that [M, N] = {1}

10


implies that (5′′ ) holds for every term operation t(x, y). Conversely, by choosing t(x, y) = x−1 yx, we get matrices of the form −1 t(m, n) t(m, 1) m nm 1 = t(1, n) t(1, 1) n 1

and so (5′′ ) for this term implies that [M, N] = {1}. The condition (5′′ ) has been called the term condition. Now we turn to rings and consider what the commutator will turn out to be for congruences on rings. Let J and K be ideals of a ring R. If the term condition is satisfied, then by considering matrices derived from the term operations s(x, y) = x · y and t(x, y) = y · x, in fact the matrices xy 0 xy x0 yx 0 yx 0x = , = x ∈ J, y ∈ K. 0 0 0y 00 0 0 y0 00

we find that J · K = K · J = {0}. This suggests that we might define [J, K], for any two ideals of a ring, as the ideal generated by J·K∪K·J. If we do make this definition, then it is easy to modify the argument we gave for groups, and prove that [J, K] is the largest binary global operation on ideals in the variety of rings which satisfies (1) and (2). It is also easy to prove that [J, K] = {0} if and only if the term condition is satisfied. Exercise 1. Let V be the variety of modules over some ring . Identify congruences with submodules. Prove that the term condition holds for any two submodules of a module. Prove that [M, N] = {0} is the only binary global operation on submodules in V which satisfies (1) and (2).

CHAPTER 2

Universal Algebra We have to assume that our readers have had a basic introduction to universal algebra, and are familiar with the most elementary concepts of modern logic. Excellent references are the books of Birkhoff [5], Crawley and Dilworth [15], and Grätzer [33] and [34], (for everything pertaining to algebras and lattices) and the book of Burris and Sankappanavar [10] (for the logic and everything to do with varieties). With the aid of these references it is possible for a reader unfamiliar with universal algebra to read this book. Our purpose in this chapter is to establish our point of view, and the notation to be used. The set {0, 1, 2, . . . } of natural numbers is denoted by ω, and its members satisfy n = {0, 1, . . . , n − 1}. We use An to denote the direct product of n copies of A. By an algebra we mean any model for a first order language L whose nonlogical symbols are operation symbols Fi with arity ρ(i), i ∈ I, where ρ(i) ∈ ω. Thus an algebra consists of a nonvoid set A together with a collection {F¯i : i ∈ I} of operations on A, i.e., maps F¯i from Aρ(i) into A, one for each operation symbol in the language. We use boldfaced capital letters to denote algebras and the same plain capital letter for the corresponding underlying sets. The operation on the set A assigned to the operation Fi in an algebra A will be denoted FiA ; and thus an algebra A has the form hA, FiA (i ∈ I)i. Whenever we deal with a class of algebras, it will be assumed that all the algebras are models for one language, i.e., that they are of the same similarity type. Thus each class K of algebras is attached to a language L(K) = L, and K ⊆ Mod(L), where of course Mod(L) denotes the class of all models of L. When A ∈ Mod(L) as above, then FiA is called the interpretation of Fi in A, and is a ρ(i)-ary operation on the set A. The type of A is the function ρ and A has finite type if and only if the domain of ρ, that is I, is finite. Constants are the same as 0-ary operations. By the universe of an algebra A we mean the underlying set A of the algebra. The cardinality of A is denoted by |A|. The set of terms in the variables vi , i ∈ ω, for a language L is the smallest set T containing the vi and such that if t1 , . . . , tn ∈ T and 11

12

2. UNIVERSAL ALGEBRA

Fi is an operation symbol in L with ρ(i) = n, then Fi (t1 , . . . , tn ) ∈ T . If A ∈ Mod(L) is an algebra then to each term of L we can associate an operation on A in an obvious way. Thus if t(v0 , . . . , vn−1 ) is a term of L in which only the (distinct) variables v0 , . . . , vn−1 appear, then tA denotes the corresponding n-ary operation on A. Such operations are called term operations, or in the older literature, derived operations. The set of term operations of A can also be defined as the smallest set of operations that is closed under composition and contains the basic operations {FiA : i ∈ I} and the trivial projection operations πin (where πin (x0 , . . . , xn−1 ) = xi ). The polynomial operations of A constitute the smallest set that is closed under composition and contains the basic operations of A, the projection operations, and the constant 0-ary operations on A. For each polynomial operation f (x0 , . . . , xn−1 ) of A, there exists a term operation p(x0 , . . . , xm−1 ) for some m ≥ n and elements an , . . . , am−1 of A, such that f (x0 , . . . , xn−1 ) = p(x0 , . . . , xn−1 , an , . . . , am−1 ) holds identically. The expression algebraic function is often used in the literature to refer to what we call a polynomial operation. Algebras A and B are called equivalent if and only if they have the same universe and exactly the same set of term operations. (Equivalent algebras need not be of the same type.) Algebras A and B are called polynomially equivalent if and only if they have the same universe and exactly the same polynomial operations. Suppose that A ∈ Mod(L) and that s = s(v0 , . . . , vn−1 ) and t = t(v0 , . . . , vn−1 ) are terms of L. The formula s ≈ t is called an equation. We write A |= s ≈ t to denote that sA = tA , i.e., sA (a0 , . . . , an−1 ) = tA (a0 , . . . , an−1 ) for all a0 , . . . , an−1 ∈ A. When A |= s ≈ t we say that s ≈ t is an identity of A. We sometimes use the terminology law or equation to mean the same as identity. K |= s ≈ t means that A |= s ≈ t for all A ∈ K. If Σ is a set of equations of L then Mod(Σ) = {A ∈ Mod(L) : A |= ε for all ε ∈ Σ} Classes of the form Mod(Σ), Σ a set of equations of L are called varieties (or equational classes). By a theorem of G. Birkhoff [4], a class V ⊆ Mod(L) is a variety if and only if V is closed under the formation of homomorphic images, subalgebras and products. The smallest variety containing a class K ⊆ Mod(L) is identical with HSP(K), where H , S and P are the operators which close classes under homomorphic images, subalgebras and direct products, respectively. We interpret these operators in such a way that the closure of K under any of them contains all isomorphic copies of its members. V ⊆ Mod(L) is a variety


13

if and only if V = HSP(V). We let V denote the operator HSP, i.e., V (K) = HSP(K). A congruence of an algebra A is an equivalence relation on the universe of A that is induced by some homomorphism with domain A, i.e., two elements of A are related by the congruence if and only if they have the same image under the homomorphism. The congruences of an algebra A constitute a lattice (ordered by set inclusion) which we denote by Con A. The lattice operations W Vof Con A will be denoted by ∨ for join, and ∧ for meet, with and for the infinitary versions. The least and greatest elements of the lattice will be denoted by 0 and 1 (or 0A and 1A for sake of clarity). If θ is in Con A, then the set of equivalence classes of θ can be made, in a natural way, into an algebra which we denote A/θ. For x ∈ A we let x/θ denote the equivalence class containing x. The map x → x/θ is a natural homomorphism from A onto A/θ. The notations x ≡ y (mod θ) and x θ y both signify that hx, yi ∈ θ. A similar notation with an entirely different meaning is α/β = {γ ∈ Con A : β ≤ γ ≤ α}. α/β is called a quotient or interval in the lattice Con A. Congruences on A can alternatively be characterized as the equivalence relations R on A such that R is a subalgebra of A × A. Congruences, in general, do not behave so well as they do in groups, rings and modules; for instance two congruences on A may share a block, x/α = x/β, for some x, without being identical. We call an algebra simple if it has exactly two congruences, and subdirectly irreducible if its congruence lattice has exactly one atom, called the monolith and usually denoted by µ, such that µ ≤ θ for every nonzero congruence θ. Another theorem of Birkhoff tells us that every algebra A is isomorphic to a subdirect product of subdirectly irreducible homomorphic images Ai, i ∈ I. That is, A is isomorphic Q to an algebra C ≤ Ai such that C projects onto each factor Ai . i∈I W An element c of a complete lattice is compact if c ≤ X for some W subset X of the lattice implies that c ≤ F for some finite F ⊆ X. A complete lattice is compactly generated or algebraic if every element is the join of compact elements. Congruence lattices are always compactly generated. V An element q of a lattice is completely meet irreducible if q = Y implies q ∈ Y . An algebra A is subdirectly irreducible if and only if the least element of Con A is completely meet irreducible. Since if θ ∈ Con A, Con(A/θ) is isomorphic to the interval 1/θ in Con A, representations of A as a subdirect product of subdirectly irreducible algebras correspond to sets of completely meet

14


irreducible congruences of A which meet to 0. For compactly generated lattices, it is not hard to prove that every element is the meet of completely meet irreducible elements. A lattice is distributive if it satisfies the distributive law, x ∧ (y ∨ z) ≈ (x ∧ y) ∨ (x ∧ z). It is modular if it satisfies the implication x ≥ y → x ∧ (y ∨ z) ≈ y ∨ (x ∧ z). In a modular lattice the notion of transposed quotients is very important. We say that α/β transposes down onto γ/δ (where α ≥ β and γ ≥ δ, of course), and we write α/β ց γ/δ if β ∧ γ = δ and β ∨ γ = α. We also write γ/δ ր α/β for this concept. The congruence on A generated by X, a subset of A × A, is denoted CgA (X), or sometimes Cg(X), and we abbreviate Cg({hx, yi}) as Cg(x, y). The subalgebra of A generated by Y is denoted SgA (Y ) or Sg(Y ). Boldface symbols like x denote n-tuples of elements. Hom(A, B) denotes the set of homomorphisms from A to B; this can be the empty set. If f ∈ Hom(A, B) then the kernel of f (i.e., the induced congruence on A) is written kerf . If B is a subalgebra of A and f is a map with domain A, f |B denotes the restriction of f to B. If θ ∈ Con A, θ|B denotes the restriction of θ to B, i.e., θ|B = θ ∩ (B × B). A variety V is called distributive if for all A ∈ V, Con A is distributive; modular if for all A ∈ V, Con A is modular; permutable if for all A ∈ V and for all θ, φ ∈ Con A, θ ◦ φ = φ ◦ θ. (Here θ ◦ φ is the relational product: {hx, yi : ∃z ∈ A, x θ z φ y}. The equality implies θ ◦ φ = θ ∨ φ, and the condition implies that Con A is modular.) Let V be a variety which contains an algebra with at least two elements and X be a nonvoid set. There is an algebra F ∈ V (unique up to isomorphism) having these properties: (1) F contains X and is generated by X; (2) whenever A ∈ V and f maps X into A, then there exists a unique homomorphism fˆ : F → A such that fˆ ⊇ f (i.e., fˆ|X = f ). Such an algebra F is said to be a free algebra in V, freely generated by X, and is denoted by FV(X). Some other notations may be used for denoting free algebras, such as FV(λ) (if |X| = λ), or FV(x, y, z) (if X = {x, y, z}). An important fact about free algebras is that for an λ algebra A, FV (A) (λ) is a subalgebra of A|A| (see Birkhoff [5]). Thus if A and λ are both finite, then so is FV (A) (λ). Consequently, if A is a finite algebra then V (A) is locally finite, i.e., every finitely generated algebra in V (A) is finite.


15

The next theorems characterize permutability, distributivity, and modularity of the congruence lattices of the algebras in a variety by the existence of terms satisfying certain equations. Conditions of this form are known as Mal’cev conditions. Theorem 2.1. For any variety we have: (1) (Mal’cev [61]) V is permutable if and only if there is a term p(x, y, z) in the language of V such that the following equations are valid in V. p(x, x, y) ≈ y ≈ p(y, x, x) (2) (Jónsson [54]) V is distributive if and only if for some n there are terms d0 (x, y, z), . . . , dn (x, y, z) such that V satisfies (i) d0 (x, y, z) ≈ x, dn (x, y, z) ≈ z, (ii) di (x, y, x) ≈ x, i ≤ n, (iii) di (x, x, y) ≈ di+1 (x, x, y), for all even i < n, (iv) di (x, y, y) ≈ di+1 (x, y, y), for all odd i < n. Proof. The proof of (2) will be omitted since it is similar to the proof of Theorem 2.2 below and we will not use (2). To sketch (1) first suppose V has such a term p and that x θ y ψ z, for some θ, ψ∈ Con A, where A ∈ V. Then x = p(x, y, y) ψ p(x, y, z) θ p(x, x, z) = z, showing that θ and ψ permute. For the converse suppose that V is permutable and let FV(x, y, z) be the free V–algebra generated by x, y and z. Let θ = Cg(x, y) and ψ = Cg(y, z). Then x θ y ψ z, so there is an element p¯ in FV(x, y, z) with x ψ p¯ θ z. Let p(x, y, z) be a term which represents p¯, that is, pF (x, y, z) = p¯ in FV(x, y, z) where pF (x, y, z) is the interpretation of p as a term operation of FV(x, y, z). Let σ be the endomorphism of FV(x, y, z) which maps x to x, y to y and z to y. One easily checks that ψ is the congruence associated with this endomorphism. Since σ is the identity map on the subalgebra generated by x and y, x ψ pF (x, y, y) implies x = pF (x, y, y). Similarly z = pF (x, x, z). Of course these facts holding in the free algebra imply that the equations of (1) hold in V.

16


Theorem 2.2. (Day [19]) A variety V is modular if and only if for some n there are terms m0 (x, y, z, u), . . . , mn (x, y, z, u) such that V satisfies (i) m0 (x, y, z, u) ≈ x, mn (x, y, z, u) ≈ u (ii) mi (x, y, y, x) ≈ x, i ≤ n (iii) mi (x, x, y, y) ≈ mi+1 (x, x, y, y), for all even i < n (iv) mi (x, y, y, z) ≈ mi+1 (x, y, y, z), for all odd i < n Lemma 2.3. Let V be a variety having terms mi (x, y, z, u), i = 0, . . . , n, satisfying the conditions of Theorem 2.2, and let A ∈ V, γ ∈ Con A, a, b, c, d ∈ A with hb, di ∈ γ. Then ha, ci ∈ γ if and only if for all i ≤ n, mi (a, a, c, c) γ mi (a, b, d, c). Lemma 2.4 (The Shifting Lemma). Let V be a modular variety and let A ∈ V and ψ, θ0 , θ1 ∈ Con A. Suppose that a, b, c, d ∈ A, ha, bi, hc, di ∈ θ0 , ha, ci, hb, di ∈ θ1 , and ψ ≥ θ0 ∧ θ1 . Then hb, di ∈ ψ implies ha, ci ∈ ψ. Pictorially, θ0

a

b

θ1 c

a ψ

d

b

implies

ψ c

d

Note. In diagrams like this, lines without labels are implicitly assumed to be labeled by (the endpoints are congruent modulo) any label appearing on a parallel line. Terms satisfying the requirements of Theorem 2.2 are called Day terms. Proofs. Consider the following conditions for a variety V. (1) V is modular. (2) V has Day terms. (3) V has terms mi (x, y, z, u), i = 0, . . . , n, satisfying mi (x, y, y, x) ≈ x, such that if A ∈ V, γ ∈ Con A, a, b, c, d ∈ A, with hb, di ∈ γ, then ha, ci ∈ γ if and only if for all i ≤ n, mi (a, a, c, c) γ mi (a, b, d, c).


17

(4) V satisfies the conclusion of the Shifting Lemma, i.e., if a, b, c, d ∈ A ∈ V and ψ, θ0 , θ1 ∈ Con A with ψ ≥ θ0 ∧ θ1 , then the implication of the figure holds. We let (4′ ) be the condition identical to (4) except that we assume only that θ0 is a reflexive, compatible relation (rather than θ0 a congruence). Clearly (4′ ) → (4). To prove the theorem and the lemmas it suffices to show that (1) → (2) → (3) → (4′ ) → (1). This will also show that condition (3) is equivalent to modularity. After the proof we will outline a proof that (4) is also equivalent to modularity. (1) → (2). Assume V is modular. Let F = FV(x, y, z, u) be the free V–algebra on four generators, and let α = Cg(x, u) ∨ Cg(y, z), β = Cg(x, y) ∨ Cg(z, u), and γ = Cg(y, z) be in Con F. Then (x, u) ∈ α ∧ (β ∨ γ). Since V is modular, hx, ui ∈ γ ∨ (α ∧ β). This means that for some n there are elements w0 = x, w1 , . . . , wn = u of FV(x, y, z, u) such that wi α ∧ β wi+1 if i is even, and wi γ wi+1 if i is odd. Let x = m0 (x, y, z, u), m1(x, y, z, u), . . . , mn (x, y, z, u) = u be the terms representing w0 , w1, . . . , wn , i.e., wi = mF i (x, y, z, u). Since γ ≤ α all of the wi ’s are in the same α class. Thus x α mF i (x, y, z, u) α mF (x, y, y, x). Since α restricted to the subalgebra generated by x and i F y is trivial, x = mi (x, y, y, x). Hence x ≈ mi (x, y, y, x) holds in V. Similar arguments show that the other equations of Theorem 2.2 hold. (2) → (3). Let V be a variety having Day terms and let A ∈ V, γ ∈ Con A, a, b, c, d ∈ A, with b γ d. First assume a γ c. Then in A mi (a, a, c, c) γ mi (a, a, a, a) = a, and mi (a, b, d, c) γ mi (a, b, b, a) = a. For the converse, setting ui = mi (a, a, c, c) and vi = mi (a, b, d, c), and assuming ui γ vi for all i ≤ n, we can show ui γ ui+1 for all i < n; thus a = u0 γ un = c. Namely, for even i < n, ui = ui+1 ; and for odd i < n, ui γ vi γ mi (a, b, b, c) = mi+1 (a, b, b, c) γ vi+1 γ ui+1 . (3) → (4′ ). Assume that V is a variety satisfying (3) and that the conditions implied by the left hand picture of Lemma 2.4 hold in algebra A ∈ V, where θ1 and ψ are congruences on A and θ0 is a reflexive, compatible relation. Then for any i ≤ n, mi (a, a, c, c) θ0 mi (a, b, d, c) and mi (a, a, c, c) θ1 mi (a, a, a, a) = a = mi (a, b, b, a) θ1 mi (a, b, d, c). Hence, mi (a, a, c, c) θ0 ∧ θ1 mi (a, b, d, c). Now the conclusion of Lemma 2.4 follows by applying (3) with γ = ψ, since ψ ≥ θ0 ∧θ1 and (b, d) ∈ ψ. (4′ ) → (1). Suppose that V satisfies (4′ ) and that A ∈ V and α, β, γ ∈ Con A with α ≥ γ. We needSto show that α ∧ (β ∨ γ) = (α ∧ β) ∨ γ. The left side may be written as (α ∩ Rn ), where R0 = β and Rk+1 = n k and let the nth component of ai and bi be pi and qi respectively. Then x21 + · · · + x2n = p1 q1 + · · · + pk qk .

(∗)

Let pi be the polynomial obtained from pi by deleting all nonlinear terms and define q i similarly. Since the constant terms of each of these polynomials are zero, the above equation is still valid if we replace pi and qP i with pi and q i . Thus P we may assume pi and qi are linear: say, pi = nj=1 cij xj and qi = nj=1 dij xj , cij , dij rational. Then (∗) yields k X

cis dit = δst

1 ≤ s, t ≤ n

i=1

i.e., C T D = In where C = (cij ), D = (dij ) and C T is the transpose of C. Since C is a k by n matrix over the rationals, with k < n, this is impossible. We will now show that our commutator is identical with the one defined by Hagemann and Herrmann, and also with C V defined in Definition 3.1. For the next few paragraphs θ and ψ will denote fixed congruences of an algebra A. A(θ) will denote θ viewed as a subalgebra of A2 . Of course. A(ψ) is defined similarly. However, we shall write the x elements of A(θ) as instead of hx, yi. We shall write the elements of y A(ψ) as x y instead of hx, yi. Thus we are thinking of the elements of A(θ) as column vectors and thoseof A(ψ) as row vectors. Hence, in a b the following definition, an element of A(θ, ψ), can be thought c d of as a member of A(θ) × A(θ) and also of A(ψ) × A(ψ). Definition 4.7. (1) A(θ, ψ) ⊆ A4 is the subalgebra of all matrices whose columns belong to θ and rows belong to ψ. (2) ∆θ,ψ is the congruence on A(θ) generated by the set of all pairs u v of the form in A(θ, ψ). u v

30

4. ONE COMMUTATOR; BASIC PROPERTIES

(3) ∆θ,ψ is the congruence on A(ψ) generated by the set of all x x pairs of the form in A(θ, ψ). y y x r x r In this notation, ∈ ∆θ,ψ is equivalent to ≡ (mod ∆θ,ψ ). y s y s Another aspect of the symmetry of the commutator is that ∆θ,ψ = ∆θ,ψ . You will get a chance to prove this in the exercises. Lemma 4.8. ∆θ,ψ is the least transitive relation on A(θ) containing M(θ, ψ). Proof. It is not hard to show that the transitive closure of M(θ, ψ), thought of as a relation on A(θ), is a congruence Γ on A(θ). Since the generators of ∆θ,ψ lie in M(θ, ψ), ∆θ,ψ ⊆ Γ. But by Proposition 3.3(1) M(θ, ψ) ⊆ ∆θ,ψ . Hence. Γ ⊆ ∆θ,ψ . Theorem 4.9. For x, y ∈ A the following are equivalent: (i) hx, yi ∈ [θ, ψ],

x y (ii) ∈ ∆θ,ψ , y y x (iii) for some a, y x (iv) for some b, b

a ∈ ∆θ,ψ , a y ∈ ∆θ,ψ . b

Proof. Clearly (ii) both (iii) and (iv). To see that (iii) implies x a implies (ii), suppose ∈ ∆θ,ψ . It is easy to see that this imy a a y plies that y ψ a. Therefore ∈ ∆θ,ψ , and hence by transitivity, a y x y ∈ ∆θ,ψ , proving (ii). y y x y Now assume that ∈ ∆θ,ψ . Since the columns are in A(θ), x, b b y, and b are all in the same θ–class. Thus. if we let η0 , η1 ∈ Con A(θ) be the congruences associated with the two projections, we have the situation diagrammed in Figure 1. x y Hence, ∈ ∆θ,ψ by the Shifting Lemma. Thus (ii), (iii), and y y (iv) are all equivalent. We claim that [θ, ψ] is the least congruence


x y

η0

η1 y y

∆θ,ψ

31

x b y b

Figure 1. on A which is a union of ∆θ,ψ classes. Indeed, by its definition (and Proposition 4.2), [θ, ψ] is the smallest congruence β such that if one column of a matrix in M(θ, ψ) is in β then the other is. Now if a c ≡ (mod ∆θ,ψ ), b d then, since ∆θ,ψ is the transitive closure of M(θ, ψ), there is a finite sequence of columns going from a c to b d with each consecutive pair of columns forming a matrix in M(θ, ψ). It follows from the above, that if a c ∈ [θ, ψ], then ∈ [θ, ψ], b d i.e. [θ, ψ] is a union of ∆θ,ψ classes. Of course, any congruence which is the union of ∆θ,ψ classes will satisfy the defining property of [θ, ψ]. Thus the claimholds. From this, (ii) implies (i) follows immediately y since certainly ∈ [θ, ψ]. y Using that (ii) and (iv) are equivalent, it is not hard to show that the set of x y

which satisfy (ii) is a congruence α. Now α is obviously the union of ∆θ,ψ classes, and hence [θ, ψ] ≤ α, by the claim. Thus (i) implies (ii).

The set of hx, yi which satisfy condition (iv) of the last theorem is the Hagemann-Herrmann commutator, and of course the theorem shows that it is the same as the one we have defined. Theorem 4.10. C (V) (θ, ψ) = [θ, ψ].

32


Proof. By Proposition 4.4 [θ, ψ] ⊆ C (V) (θ, ψ). For the other inclusion we repeat the argument for groups given in Chapter 1. Consider the following congruences on A(θ): ∆ = ∆θ,ψ [θ, ψ]0 = {hhx, ui, hy, vii ∈ A(θ)2 : hx, yi ∈ [θ, ψ]} η1 = {hhx, ui, hy, uii ∈ A(θ)2 : x θ y θ y} and let P0 : A(θ) → A be the first projection. In Con A(θ) we have C (V) (η1 , ∆) ≤ η1 ∧ ∆ ≤ [θ, ψ]0 . The first inequality is part of the definition of C (V) , and the second follows from the equivalence of (i) and (iv) in the last theorem. If for α ∈ Con A we put α0 = p−1 0 (α) −1 and η0 = p0 (0), then it is easy to see, by arguing on elements, that θ0 = η1 ∨ η0 , ψ0 = ∆ ∨ η0 . Hence, θ = p0 (η1 ∨ η0 ) and ψ = p0 (∆ ∨ η0 ). Thus by the definition of C (V) we have C (V) (θ, ψ) = C (V) (P0 (η1 ∨ η0 ), P0 (∆ ∨ η0 )) = P0 (C (V) (η1 , ∆) ∨ η0 ) ≤ [θ, ψ]. completing the proof.

The next theorem gives the Hagemann-Herrmann lattice theoretic characterization of the commutator. First we introduce some useful notation. For B a subalgebra of A × A and γ ∈ Con A, let γi , i = 0, 1, be the congruence on B defined by hx0 , x1 i γi hy0 , y1 i if xi γ yi . We use η1 to denote 0i . Theorem 4.11. Let A be an algebra in a modular variety V and let α, θ, ψ ∈ Con A . Then a ≥ [θ, ψ] if and only if there is a B ∈ V and a homomorphism f : B ։ A and σ, τ ∈ Con B with. σ ∨ f −1 (α) ≥ f −1 (ψ) τ ∨ f −1 (α) ≥ f −1 (θ) f −1 (α) ≥ σ ∧ τ. Proof. First suppose that α ≥ [θ, ψ], and let β = [θ, ψ]. Take B = A(θ), σ = ∆θ,ψ , τ = η1 ∈ Con B, and let f be the first projection. Then ∆θ,ψ ∨ β0 = ψ0 , η1 ∨ β0 = θ0 = θ1 , and β0 ≥ ∆θ,ψ ∧ η1 . As noted in the last theorem, the last inequality follows from Theorem 4.9, and the others follow from easy arguments on the elements. For example, if hx, yi ψ0 hu, vi, i.e., x π u and hx, yi, hu, vi ∈ A(θ), then hx, yi β0 hx, xi ∆ hu, ui β0 hu, vi. Since β0 = f −1 (β) ≤ f −1 (α), one direction of the theorem is proved.

EXERCISES

33

For the other direction, suppose such a B, f, σ and τ exist. Then by additivity. [f −1 (θ), f −1 (ψ)] ≤ [τ ∨ f −1 (α), σ ∨ f −1 (α)] ≤ σ ∧ τ ∨ f −1 (α) = f −1 (α). Hence by Proposition 4.4, [θ, ψ] ≤ α,

The next definition defines the residuation operation which is important in multiplicative ideal theory. It also will play an important role here. Definition 4.12. For θ, ψ ∈ Con A we let (θ :ψ) denote the largest γ ∈ Con A such that [ψ, γ] ≤ θ. This operation is known as residuation. Exercises 1. Suppose that A lies in a permutable variety with Mal’cev term p(x, y, x). Suppose θ, ψ ∈ Con A with [θ, ψ] = 0 and let b ∈ A be fixed. Define x + y = p(x, b, y). Show that if x θ b ψ y and z is arbitrary then x + y = y + x and x + (y + z) = (z + y) + z. 2. Show that x y x u θ,ψ ∈ ∆ if and only if ∈ ∆ψ,θ . u v y v 3. Show that if ∆ is either ∆θ,ψ or ∆θ,ψ then (i) x y ∈ ∆ if and only if hx, yi ∈ ψ. x y (ii)

(iii)

x x ∈ ∆ if and only if hx, ui ∈ θ. u u

x y ∈∆ u v

implies x y x x u v y x , , , ∈ ∆. x y u u x y v u

34


4. Use the Shifting lemma to show that if a a ∈ ∆θ,ψ c d and

then

a ∈ θ, b b b ∈ ∆θ,ψ . c d

5. Prove ∆θ,ψ = ∆θ,ψ . (Hint: By Lemma 4.8 it suffices to show that if x y u v , ∈ ∆θ,ψ u v r s then x y ∈ ∆θ,ψ . r s Do this using Lemma 2.3 and the previous exercises.) 6. For αi , β ∈ Con A show V that theVresiduation defined in Definition 4.12 satisfies ( αi : β) = (αi : β).

CHAPTER 5

The Fundamental Theorem on Abelian Algebras Initially we do not assume A lies in a modular variety. Definition 5.1. The center of any algebra A is the binary relation ζA ⊆ A2 defined by hx, yi ∈ ζA ⇔ (∀t)(∀u, v) (t(u, x) = t(v, x) ←→ t(u, y) = t(v, y)). (The first quantifier is over all term operations of A, the second is over all n-tuples of A, n depending on t.) Lemma 5.2. ζA is is the largest congruence α on A such that [α, 1A] = 0A . This result follows easily from Definition 3.2. Henceforth, all varieties will be assumed to be modular and all algebras will be assumed to generate modular varieties. Definition 5.3. A congruence θ ∈ Con A is called Abelian if [θ, θ] = 0. An algebra A is Abelian if [1A , 1A ] = 0A , or, what amounts to the same thing, ζA = 1A , variety is Abelian if all its members are. Definition 5.4. We call A affine if there is an Abelian group ˆ having the same universe as A, and a 3-ary term operhA, +, −i = A ation of A, t(x, y, z), such that: (1) t(x, y, z) = x − y + z for all x, y, z ∈ A (2) f (x − y + z) = f (x) − f (y) + f (z) for each term operation f and x, y, z ∈ An . When these conditions hold, t is called a difference operation for A, the algebra hA, ti is called a ternary group, and we say that A is t-affine. Before proceeding further, we mention that Definition 5.4(2) has two equivalent forms, as the reader can verify. First, {hx, y, z, ui : x + y = z + u} is a subalgebra of A4 . Second, each operation (and each term operation) of the algebra A is affine with respect to the group ˆ that is to say, for any given operation F (say F is n-ary) there are A, ˆ and an element a ∈ A such that F can endomorphisms α1 , . . . , αn of A 35

36

5. THE FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM ON ABELIAN ALGEBRAS

be expressed identically as F (x1 , . . . , xn ) =

n X

αi (xi ) + a.

i=1

In this chapter we shall prove Herrmann’s result that in a modular variety every Abelian algebra is affine, and conversely. The proof we present is relatively short and direct. It also proves a generalization and establishes other facts we will use later. The proof combines ideas from several people. Credits will be given at the end of the chapter. We begin with some useful preliminary results. Theorem 5.5. For each modular variety V there is a ternary term d, called a difference term, satisfying the following. (i) d(x, x, y) ≈ y is an identity of V. (ii) If hx, yi ∈ θ ∈ Con A, A ∈ V, then d(x, y, y) [θ, θ] x. (iii) If α, β, γ ∈ Con A, A ∈ V and α ∧ β ≤ γ, then the implication of Figure 1 holds. x

β

α y

implies

γ u

x

z

u′

z

γ

d(u, u′, y) y

u

u′

Figure 1. Proof. Since V is modular there are terms m0 (x, y, z, u), . . . , mn (x, y, z, u) which satisfy the identities of Theorem 2.2. Define qi (x, y, z), i = 0, 1, . . . , n inductively by q0 (x, y, z) = z ( mi+1 (qi (x, y, z), y, x, qi(x, y, z)) i odd qi+1 (x, y, z) = mi+1 (qi (x, yz), x, qi (x, y, z)) i even and set d(x, y, z) = qn (x, y, z). It follows from Theorem 2.2(ii) that qi (x, x, y) ≈ y. Hence d(x, x, y) ≈ y holds in V.


37

To show (ii) assume hx, yi ∈ θ. We prove inductively that (1)

qi (x, y, y) [θ, θ] mi (y, y, y, x),

i odd

qi (x, y, y) [θ, θ] mi (y, y, x, x),

i even

Since mn (x, y, z, u) = u, (ii) will then follow. The case i = 0 is immediate from Day’s identities. Suppose i is odd and that (1) holds for i. Then qi+1 (x, y, y) = mi+1 (qi (x, y, y), y, x, qi(x, y, y)) [θ, θ] mi+1 (mi (y, y, y, x), y, x, mi(y, y, y, x)). Now by Theorem 2.2 mi+1 (mi (y, y, y, x),y, y, mi(y, y, y, x)) = mi (y, y, y, x) = mi+1 (y, y, y, x) = mi+1 (mi (y, y, y, y), y, y, mi(x, x, x, x). The term condition of Definition 3.2(2) says that if t(x, x1 , . . . , xn−1 ) = t(x, y1 , . . . , yn−1) for certain elements of A with xi θ yi , i = 1, . . . , n−1, then t(y, x1 , . . . , xn−1 ) [θ, θ] t(y, y1, . . . , yn−1 ) for any y ∈ A with x θ y. Applying this to the sixth variable of the above equation, we get mi+1 (mi (y, y, y, x), y, x, mi(y, y, y, x)) [θ, θ] mi+1 (mi (y, y, y, y), y, x, mi(x, x, x, x)) = mi+1 (y, y, x, x). Thus qi+1 (x, y, y) [θ, θ] mi+1 (y, y, x, x). Now suppose i is even and that (1) holds for i. Then qi+1 (x, y, y) [θ, θ] mi+1 (mi (y, y, x, x), x, y, mi(y, y, x, x)) as before. Now mi+1 (mi (y, y, x, x),x, x, mi (y, y, x, x)) = mi (y, y, x, x) = mi+1 (y, y, x, x) = mi+1 (mi (y, y, y, y), y, x, mi(x, x, x, x)). The term condition implies mi+1 (mi (y, y, x, x),x, y, mi (mi (y, y, x, x)) [θ, θ] mi+1 (mi (y, y, y, y), y, y, mi(x, x, x, x)) = mi+1 (y, y, y, x).

38


Thus qi+1 (x, y, y) [θ, θ] mi+1 (y, y, y, x). To prove (iii) we shall show that any term d(x, y, z) which satisfies (i) and (ii) satisfies (iii). Suppose d(x, y, z) satisfies (i) and (ii), and that the relations of Figure 2 hold for congruences α, β, and γ where α ∧ β ≤ γ. x α y

β

z

γ u

u′

Figure 2. Then d(u, u′, y) β d(y, y, y) = y. Also (2)

d(u, u′, y) γ d(z, u′ , y)

(3)

d(z, u′ , y) α d(z, z, x) = x

(4)

d(z, u′ , y) β d(x, y, y).

Since hx, yi ∈ α ∧ (β ∨ γ), (ii) yields d(x, y, y) [α ∧ (β ∨ γ), α ∧ (β ∨ γ)] x. But [α ∧ (β ∨ γ), α ∧ (β ∨ γ)] ≤ [α, β ∨ γ] = [α, β] ∨ [α, γ] ≤ (α ∧ β) ∨ (α ∧ γ) = α ∧ γ. Thus by (4) d(z, u′ , y) β ∨ α ∧ γ x. Hence d(z, u′, y) α ∧ (β ∨ (α ∧ γ)) x. But α ∧ (β ∨ (α ∧ γ)) = (α ∧ β) ∨ (α ∧ γ) = α ∧ γ, that is, d(z, u′ , y) α ∧ γ x. Hence by (2) d(u, u′, y) γ x, proving (iii). We remark that a term which satisfies (iii) will satisfy (i) and (ii); see Exercise 6. The term d(x, y, z) constructed above plays an important role in our theory. We call a term which satisfies Theorem 5.5(i) and (ii) a difference term for V , or a Gumm difference term. In what follows, d will always denote a difference term. Of course, in a permutable variety a Mal’cev term satisfies Theorem 5.5(i) and (ii) and thus is a difference term. The next lemma proves Gumm’s observation that a Mal’cev term (see Theorem 2.1(1)) which commutes with itself defines a ternary Abelian group. Lemma 5.6. Let t(x, y, z) be a 3-ary operation on a set S such that t commutes with itself and satisfies the Mal’cev equations t(x, x, y) ≈ y ≈ t(y, x, x, ). For any fixed a ∈ S the operation x + y = t(x, a, y) defines


39

an Abelian group on S with a as null element and with −x = t(a, x, a). Moreover, t(x, y, z) = x − y + z. Proof. That t commutes with itself means that for all xi , yi , zi ∈ S t(t(x1 , y1 , z1 ),t(x2 , y2, z2 ), t(x3 , y3 , z3 )) = t(t(x1 , x2 , x3 ), t(y1 , y2 , y3), t(z1 , z2 , z3 )). Clearly, x + a = a + x = x. For associativity x + (y + z) = t(x, a, t(y, a, z)) = t(t(x, a, a), t(a, a, a), t(y, a, z)) = t(t(x, a, y), t(a, a, a), t(a, a, z)) = t(t(x, a, y), a, z) = (x + y) + z. To see that −x = t(a, x, a), we calculate x + t(a, x, a) = t(x, a, t(a, x, a)) = t(t(x, a, a), t(a, a, a), t(a, x, a)) = t(t(x, a, a), t(a, a, x), t(a, a, a)) = t(x, x, a) = a. Now x + y = t(x, a, y) = t(t(a, a, x), t(a, a, a), t(y, a, a)) = t(t(a, a, y), t(a, a, a), t(x, a, a)) = t(y, a, x) = y + x. To see that x − y + z = t(x, y, z), we first show that x − y = t(x, y, a) : x − y = t(x, a, t(a, y, a)) = t(t(x, a, a), t(a, a, a), t(a, y, a)) = t(t(x, a, a), t(a, a, y), t(a, a, a)) = t(x, y, a). Finally x − y + z = t(t(x, y, a), a, z) = t(t(x, y, a), t(a, a, a), t(a, a, z)) = t(t(x, a, a), t(y, a, a), t(a, a, z))t(x, y, z).

40


Proposition 5.7. Let α ≥ β where α, β ∈ Con A. The following are necessary and sufficient conditions in order that [α, β] = 0. For any basic operation (and hence any term operation) s(x1 , . . . , xn ) and elements xi β yi α zi , (i = 1, . . . , n) we have d(s(x), s(y), s(z)) = s(d(x1 , y1 , z1 ), . . . , d(xn , yn , zn )) and hy, zi ∈ β

implies

d(y, z, z) = d(z, z, y) = y.

Proof. Suppose first that [α, β] = 0. By considering the congruences η0 , η1 (first and second projections) and ∆ = ∆α,β on the algebra A(α) (see Definition 4.7). When x β y α z , we have the relations of Firure 3. hz, yi

η1

η0

∆

hy, yi

hz, xi hx, xi hy, xi Figure 3. Hence, by Theorem 5.5(iii) hd(x, y, z), xi ≡ hz, yi (mod ∆α,β ). In particular hd(s(x), s(y), s(z)), s(x)i ≡ hs(z), s(y)i (mod ∆α,β ). But applying s to the n congruences hd(xi , yi, zi ), xi i ≡ hzi , yi i yields hs(d(x1 , y1 , z1 ), . . . , d(xn , yn , zn )), s(x)i ∆α,β hs(z), s(y)i. Since [α, β] = 0, and by the equivalence of (i) and (iv) in Theorem 4.9 the two displayed formulas above give the desired conclusion. The last statement follows from Theorem 5.5. Now suppose the conditions hold. Then the congruence ∆β,α on A(β) (see Definition 4.7) is characterized by hx, yi ∆β,α hu, vi iff ′

x β y α u and v = d(y, x, u).

To see this let ∆ be the relation on A2 defined by the second part, that is, ∆′ = {hhx, yi, hu, vii : x β y α u, v = d(y, x, u)}. That ∆′ determines a congruence on A(β) follows from the properties of d and the conditions of Proposition 5.7. For example, to see that this relation


41

is symmetric suppose x β y α u and v = d(y, x, u). Clearly u β v α x and since d commutes with itself. d(v, u, x) = d(d(y, x, u), d(x, x, u), d(x, x, x)) = d(d(y, x, x), d(x, x, x), d(u, u, x) = d(y, x, x) = y. which proves hu, vi ∆′ hx, yi, i.e., ∆′ is symmetric. Now ∆β,α is the congruence on A(β) generated by {hhx, xi, hu, uii : x α u}. Clearly these generators are in ∆′ . Hence ∆β,α ⊆ ∆′ . Suppose hx, yi ∆′ hu, vi. Then x α u so that hx, xi ∆β,α hu, ui. Now by calculations in A(β) we have hx, yi = hd(x, x, x), d(y, x, x)i = d(hx, yi, hx, xi, hx, xi) ∆β,α d(hx, yi, hx, xi, hu, ui) = hd(x, x, u), d(y, x, u)i = hu, vi. Hence ∆β,α = ∆′ . Now if x [α, β] y then hx, xi ∆β,α hx, yi. Hence y = d(x, x, x), i.e., y = x. The next corollary reformulates Proposition 5.7 for the case α = β. For u ∈ A we let M(β, u) = hu/β, di, the ternary group with universe the β− block containing u. In Chapter 9 M(β, u) will be given a module structure. Corollary 5.8. A congruence β on A is Abelian if and only if each M(β, u) is a ternary group and whenever s(u1 , . . . , un ) = u where s is an n–ary term operation then s : M(β, u1) × · · · × M(β, un ) → M(β, u) is a homomorphism, i.e., s is affine between the β–blocks. Proof. Since d is idempotent, the β− block u/β is closed under d. If β is Abelian then, by Proposition 5.7, d commutes with itself on u/β and thus, by Lemma 5.6, M(β, u) is a ternary group. This corollary follows easily from Proposition 5.7. Corollary 5.9. In a modular variety every Abelian algebra is affine, and conversely. As the definition of affine and the remarks following it indicate, Abelian algebras are closely related to modules (in fact, each Abelian algebra is polynomially equivalent to a module). This connection is studied more thoroughly in Chapter 9. The term d(x, y, z) constructed in Theorem 5.5 was first constructed by Herrmann in [45]. The short proof that it satisfies (ii) is Taylor’s. Gumm [36], [38], using his geometrical methods, constructed a term satisfying (iii) and showed (iii) implies (i) and (ii). Udi Hrushovskii

42


proved that (i) and (ii) imply (iii). Proposition 5.7 was proved by Gumm in [38]. Corollary 5.8 appeared in Herrmann [45]. Of course the fundamental theorem on Abelian algebras, Corollary 5.9, is Herrmann’s [45]. It had been previously established for permutable varieties independently by Gumm and McKenzie. Proposition 5.7 will play an important role in the rest of this book. Kiss [56] obtained a nice generalization of Theorem 5.5 and Proposition 5.7. He constructed a 4–ary term for each modular variety which he calls a 4–difference term. He then gave necessary and sufficient conditions for [α, β] = 0 similar to those of Proposition 5.7. However his theorem does not require that α ≥ β. His results are described in more detail in the Related Literature chapter.

EXERCISES

43

Exercises All algebras are assumed to belong to a modular variety. 1. Show that if M3 (the five element modular, nondistributive lattice) is a 0, 1–sublattice of Con A then A is Abelian. (Assume V (A) is modular.) 2. Prove that for an algebra A in a modular variety the following are equivalent. (i) M3 is a 0, 1–sublattice of Con(A × A) , (ii) the projection congruences of A×A have a common complement, (iii) M3 is a 0, 1–sublattice of some subdirect product of two copies of A. (iv) A is Abelian. 3. Let B be a subdirect power of two copies of A such that the join of the kernels of the two projections is 1. Show that if B contains M3 as a 0, 1–sublattice then the subdirect product is direct. 4. Let α and β be the projection congruences of A × B and let γ ∈ Con(A × B) be arbitrary. Use Theorem Theorem 5.5(iii) to prove Gumm’s result that every congruence permutes with the projection congruences of a direct product. 5. Suppose α ≥ β and [α, β] = 0. Then for hu, vi ∈ α prove that the function x 7→ d(x, u, v) is an isomorphism from M(β, u) onto M(β, v). 6. Let V be a variety which has a term d(x, y, z) satisfying Theorem 5.5(iii). Show that V is modular and Theorem 5.5(i) and (ii) hold for this d. 7. Show that if hA, ·, /, \, 1i is a loop which is Abelian then x · y is commutative and associative, i.e., x · y is an Abelian group operation.

44


8. Let G be the quasigroup with multiplication table · 0 1 2 3

0 3 2 1 0

1 2 3 0 1

2 0 1 2 3

3 1 0 3 2

Show G is Abelian (but x · y is neither commutative nor associative).

9. Let hA, ·, /, \i be the quasigroup with multiplication · 0 1 2 3

0 0 2 1 3

1 1 3 2 0

2 2 0 3 1

3 3 1 0 2

For c ∈ A, define x +c y = p(x, c, y) where p(x, y, z) = (x/(y \ y)) · (y \ z). Show that for each c, hA, +c i is an Abelian group but that hA, ·, /, \i is not Abelian.

10. A subloop H of a loop G is called a normal subloop if there is some congruence on G whose class containing the identity element is H. Exactly as for groups there is a one-to-one correspondence between normal subloops and congruences. Thus if H and K are normal subloops we can define [H, K] to be the normal subloop corresponding to the commutator of the congruences associated with H and K. This exercise will show that this correspondence is not as nice as one might hope. Namely if G is a group and H is a normal subgroup of G then [H, H] is the derived subgroup of H. In particular it depends only on H and not on G. However for loops this is not the case; [H, H] is not determined from just H. One needs the whole congruence associated with H to determine [H, H]. To see this let Z4 = {0, 1, 2, 3} denote the group of integers under addition modulo 4. Let G = Z4 ×Z4 and define a binary operation on G by ha, bi · hc, di = ha + c, b + di unless b = d = 1

EXERCISES

45

in which case the operation is defined by the following table: · 01 11 21 31

01 12 02 22 32

11 02 22 32 12

21 22 32 12 02

31 32 12 02 22

Show that G = hG, ·i is a loop with identity element h0, 0i and that the second projection is a homomorphism. Let θ be the congruence associated with this projection. Let H = {h0, 0i, h1, 0i, h2, 0i, h3, 0i} be the normal subloop associated with θ. Show that as a subloop of G, H is isomorphic to the group Z4 , and hence H is an Abelian loop. However, show that in G, [θ, θ] 6= 0. This fact may explain why the commutator was slow to be developed in the theory of loops. 11. Prove the following result of C. Herrmann [46]. Let V be a variety such that Con A is a complemented modular lattice for all A ∈ V. Prove that V is Abelian. The congruence λ defined in the proof of Proposition 4.5 may be useful.

CHAPTER 6

Permutability and a Characterization of Modular Varieties One of the surprising consequences of commutator theory is that certain pairs of congruences are forced to permute. Most of the people who have worked with the commutator have proved results of this nature. For example, by Corollary 5.9 Abelian algebras have permutable congruences and the factor congruences of the direct product of two algebras permute with all congruences (see Exercise 5.4.). The best results on permutability have been obtained by H.-P. Gumm [41]. We present here a sample of these results, proving those parts we will use later and relegating the proofs of the remaining results to the exercises. We also give Gumm’s characterization of modular varieties in terms of a Mal’cev condition which amalgamates Jónsson’s condition for distributivity with Mal’cev’s condition for permutability (see Theorem 2.1). Definition 6.1. Given α, β ∈ Con A we put [α]0 = (β, α]0 = α, [α] = [[α]n , [αn ]], (β, α]n+1 = [β, (β, α]n ] for each n < ω. Then (1) α is Abelian if [α, α] = 0, central if [1, α] = 0. k-step solvable if [α]k = 0. k-step nilpotent if (α, α]k = 0 (2) A is k-step solvable if 1A is k-step solvable, k-step nilpotent or nilpotent of class k if (1A , 1A ]k = 0. (3) α is co-solvable if A/α is solvable (i.e., k-step solvable for some k). n+1

In the following, α ◦ β is the composition (or relation product) of α with β. Theorem 6.2. For α, β ∈ Con A we have for all k < ω α ◦ β ⊆ [α]k ◦ β ◦ α. Every solvable and every co-solvable congruence permutes with all congruences, and every solvable algebra has permuting congruences. Proof. Induct on k. The result is trivial for k = 0. Suppose x α y β z. Then by induction there are elements u, v ∈ A with x [α]k u β v α z. Then, by Theorem 5.5, x [α]k+1 d(x, u, u) β 47

48

6. PERMUTABILITY

d(x, u, v) α d(u, u, z) = z, since [α]k ≤ α. The statement about solvable congruences follows immediately. If α is co-solvable then [1]k ≤ α for some, k. If β ∈ Con A is arbitrary, then [β]k ≤ [1]k ≤ α. Hence β ◦ α ⊆ [β]k ◦ α ◦ β = α ◦ β. Theorem 6.3. The following conditions are equivalent where α, β ∈ Con A. (i) α permutes with β (ii) [α]m permutes with [β]n for all m, n ∈ ω (iii) [α]m permutes with [β]n for some m, n ∈ ω. This theorem is due to Gumm. His proof is outlined in the exercises. He obtains various stronger results in [1983]. Theorem 6.4. (Gumm [1981], Theorem 1.4) Let V be a variety (or quasivariety). Then V is modular if and only if there exist terms p and q0 , . . . , qn for some n such that the following are identities of V : (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

q0 (x, y, z) ≈ x, qi (x, y, x) ≈ x i ≤ n, qi (x, y, y) ≈ qi+1 (x, y, y) for i even, qi (x, x, y) ≈ qi+1 (x, x, y) for i odd, qn (x, y, y) ≈ p(x, y, y), p(x, x, y) ≈ y.

Proof. First suppose that V is modular and let A ∈ V, and let α, β, γ ∈ Con A with x α y β z and x γ z. Let θ = Cg(x, z) and note that θ ≤ γ ∧ (α ∨ β). Hence [θ, θ] ≤ [γ, α ∨ β] = [γ, α] ∨ [γ, β] ≤ (γ ∧ α) ∨ (γ ∧ β). Thus by Theorem 5.5 x (γ ∧ α) ∨ (γ ∧ β) d(x, z, z). So (7)

x (γ ∧ α) ∨ (γ ∧ β) d(x, z, z) β d(x, y, z) α d(x, x, z) = z.

Notice that this shows that every modular variety satisfies the congruence identity (α◦β)∧γ ≤ ((γ ∧α)∨(γ ∧β))◦β ◦α. Now we apply this to F = FV(x, y, z) with α = Cg(x, y), β = Cg(y, z), and γ = Cg(x, z). By (7) there are terms q0 (x, y, z) = x, q1 (x, y, z), . . . , qn (x, y, z) = d(x, z, z) such that, in F, qi (x, y, z) β qi+1 (x, y, z) if i is even, qi (x, y, z) α qi+1 (x, y, z) if i is odd, and qi (x, y, z) γ qi+1 (x, y, z) for i = 0, . . . , n. As in the proof of Theorem 2.1, β restricted to the subalgebra generated by x and y is trivial, and thus for i even qi (x, y, y) β qi (x, y, z) β qi+1 (x, y, z) β qi+1 (x, y, y) implies that, in F, qi (x, y, y) = qi+1 (x, y, y) and hence (3) holds. Similarly (2)–(4) hold. Now if we let p(x, y, z) = d(x, y, z) then (1), (5), and (6) hold as well.

EXERCISES

49

Now suppose that V has terms satisfying the equations of the theorem. We may assume that n is even since if it is odd then equations (3) and (5) imply that qn−1 (x, y, y) ≈ p(x, y, y) and thus we could omit qn . Define terms m0 (x, y, z, u), . . . , m2n+2 (x, y, z, u) as follows. Set m0 (x, y, z, u) = x. If i is even (and 1 ≤ i ≤ n), set m2i−1 (x, y, z, u) = qi (x, y, u) m2i (x, y, z, u) = qi (x, z, u). If i is odd set m2i−1 (x, y, z, u) = qi (x, z, u) m2i (x, y, z, u) = qi (x, y, u). Finally let m2n+1 (x, y, z, u) = p(y, z, u) and let m2n+2 (x, y, z, u) = u. Then it is not difficult to show that these are Day terms for V, i.e., they satisfy the equations of Theorem 2.2. The proof of the above theorem is based on Lakser, Taylor and Tschantz [59]. The congruence identity used in the proof is due to Steve Tschantz and is actually equivalent to modularity (see the next theorem). Gumm’s original proof produced a similar congruence implication. Theorem 6.5. A variety V is modular if and only if for all A ∈ V and all α, β and γ ∈ Con A, (8)

(α ◦ β) ∧ γ ≤ (γ ∧ α + γ ∧ β) ◦ β ◦ α

Proof. The proof of Theorem 6.4 showed that (8) holds if V is modular. If (8) holds let F = FV(x, y, z), and let α = Cg(x, y), β = Cg(y, z), and γ = Cg(x, z) in Con F. Since hx, zi is in the left side of (8) it is in the right. Now an argument similar to the one in Theorem 6.4 yields terms q0 , . . . , qn , p which satisfy Theorem 6.4(1)–(6). Hence V is modular. Notice that our proof of Theorem 6.4 shows that any Gumm difference term can serve as the p(x, y, z) of that theorem. One of the exercises proves the converse. Exercises 1. Prove for α, β ∈ Con A, k < ω that α ◦ β ⊆ β ◦ α ◦ [β]k . (this can be derived directly from the inclusion of Theorem 6.2. by reversing the roles of α and β.)

50

6. PERMUTABILITY

2. Use Theorem 6.2. to prove for all m, m ∈ ω α ◦ β ⊆ β ◦ [α]m ◦ [β]n ◦ α. Deduce (iii) → (i) in Theorem 6.3. 3. Prove (i) → (ii) in Theorem 6.3. First show that it suffices to prove that if α, β ∈ Con A and α permutes with β then [α, α] permutes with β. Suppose x [α, α] y β z. Then there is a u ∈ A with x β u α z. Use the Shifting Lemma to show hu, zi ∈ [α, α] ∨ (α ∧ β). Now use the previous exercise to show [α, α] and α ∧ β permute. 4. Show that if α and β are nilpotent congruences, then α ∨ β is nilpotent. Conclude that if Con A satisfies the ascending chain condition then A has a unique largest nilpotent congruence. 5. Let V be a modular variety an let q0 , . . . , qn , p be terms of V which satisfy Theorem 6.4(1)–(6). Show that p is a Gumm difference term for V, i.e., show that for any x, y ∈ A ∈ V, x [θ, θ] p(x, y, y) if x θ y. 6. Let V be a modular variety with Gumm terms q0 , . . . , qn , p (see Theorem 6.4.). Suppose that A ∈ V and that a, b, c, d ∈ A. We write C(a, b, c, d), and say that ha, bi centralizes hc, di, if and only if [CgA (a, b), CgA (c, d)] = 0A . This exercise involves finding an equational characterization of this 4–ary relation, equivalently, finding a uniformly describable set of generators for the congruence [CgA (a, b), CgA (c, d)]. We begin by defining two other 4–ary relations. H(a, b, c, d) ⇐⇒ s(a, c, e) = s(a, d, e) → s(b, c, e) = s(b, d, e) for every term operation s(x, y, z) and for all e. K(a, b, c, d) ⇐⇒ qi (s(a, e),t(c, f), s(b, e)) = qi (s(a, e), t(d, f), s(b, e)) and p(r(a, c, e), r(b, c, e), r(b, d, e)) = p(r(a, d, e), r(b, d, e), r(b, d, e)). for all term operations s(x, y), t(x, y), and r(x, y, z), for every e and f, and for every i ≤ n. Using Gumm’s equations, derive these facts:

EXERCISES

51

(1) C(a, b, c, d) → H(a, b, c, d). (2) H(a, b, c, d) → K(a, b, c, d). (3) K(a, b, c, d) → H(c, d, a, b). (4) H(a, b, c, d) ←→ K(a, b, c.d). (5) H(a, b, c, d) ←→ H(a, b, d, c). (6) H(a, a, c, d). (7) H(a, b, c, d) and H(b, e, c, d) → H(a, e, c, d). (8) If f is a basic n-ary operation of A and if H(ai , bi , c, d) holds for each i < n, then H(u, v, c, d) holds, where u = f (a) and v = f (b). (9) For each ha, bi the set K(a, b) = {hc, di : K(a, b, c, d)} is a congruence equal to (0A : Cg(a, b)). Conclude that C(a, b, c, d) ←→ K(a, b, c, d). 7. The starting assumptions are the same as in the previous exercise. Now suppose that α and β are congruences of A and that either α is Abelian, or that p satisfies the other Mal’cev equation p(x, y, y) ≈ x. Prove that [α, β] = 0A if and only if p : D → A is a homomorphism, where D is the subalgebra of A3 consisting of the elements hx, y, zi with x α y β z. See Gumm’s characterization of Abelian congruences, Theorem 5.7. 8. Let A and B be algebras in a modular variety and suppose that the congruences of A permute, and the congruences of B permute. Prove that the congruences of A × B permute. 9. Let d(x, y, z) be a Gumm difference term for a modular variety V and define d1 (x, y, z) = d(x, y, z) and dn+1(x, y, z) = dn (x, dn (x, y, y), dn(x, y, z)) Show that dn is also a difference term. Moveover, if hx, yi ∈ θ ∈ Con A, A ∈ V, then dn (x, y, y) [θ]n x.

CHAPTER 7

The Center and Nilpotent Algebras In this chapter we show how an algebra A may be decomposed in terms of an Abelian algebra and A/ζ where ζ is the center of A. Some easy applications of this decomposition to nilpotent loops are given in the exercises. We also investigate nilpotent algebras, showing that they have uniform and regular congruences and that associated with each nilpotent algebra is a nilpotent loop. Finally we prove a proposition which played an important role in Burris-McKenzie [8]. Corollary 5.9 gave the structure of Abelian algebras. We shall now describe the structure of an algebra over its center. Suppose that Q, ˆ = hQ, +, −i (so that B ∈ V, Q is Abelian with associated group Q d(x, y, z) = x − y + z for x, y, z ∈ Q) and that we are given for each basic operation symbol Fi of V a map Ti : Bn :→ Q where Fi is n–ary. Write T = (Ti , i ∈ I) for the system of maps, and define an algebra A = Q ⊗T B by taking Q × B for the universe of A and putting (B)

FiA (hq1 , b1 i, . . . , hqn , bn i) = hFiQ (q) + Ti (b), Fi

(b)i

for i ∈ I. Notice that since Q is Abelian and hence affine each term F for V has a corresponding transfer function T so that the above equation holds. This algebra Q ⊗T B need not belong to V, of course, but we have the following. Proposition 7.1. Given A ∈ V, let B = A/ζA. There is an Abelian algebra Q ∈ V and α system T as above so that A ∼ = Q ⊗T B, and furthermore (1) the center of Q ⊗T B is the kernel of the projection onto B; (2) Q = A(ζA )/∆ζA ,1A . Proof. Recall from Chapter 4 and Definition 5.1 that A(ζA ) is the center of A (a congruence ) regarded as an algebra, and that congruence ∆ = ∆ζA ,1A on this algebra is generated by {hhx, xi, hy, yii : x, y ∈ A}, As in the proof of Proposition 5.7 we have (1)

hx, yi ≡ hu, vi (mod ∆)

⇔

hx, yi ∈ ζ and v = d(y, x, y).

That Q is Abelian is proved as follows. Where η0 , η1 are the projection kernels on A(ζ), in Con A(ζ), we have η0 ∨ ∆ = η1 ∨ ∆ = 1 53

54

7. THE CENTER AND NILPOTENT ALGEBRAS

obviously. Thus [1, 1] ⊆ ∆ ∨ (η0 ∧ η1 ) = ∆ by additivity. Then in Con Q, [1, 1] = 0 by the homomorphism property of commutator (i.e. Proposition 4.4(1)). Now let r ∈ AA be a choice function for the ζ–blocks, so that r(x)ζx and x ζ y if and only if f (x) = r(y). Then we get a one-one map of A onto Q × B by defining π(x) = hhr(x), xi/∆, x/ζi. (That π is bijective follows from (1) above and Theorem 5.5). For F1 a basic operation of V and u ∈ Bn , say uj = xj /ζ, put Ti (u1 , . . . , un ) = hr(Fi(x)), Fi (r(x1 ), . . . , r(xn ))i/∆. ˆ then we have We can choose 0 = hx, xi/∆ as the identity element of Q; a + b = d(a, 0, b) for a, b ∈ Q. What remains is to show that for Fi , u, x as above with say π(xj ) = haj , uj i for 1 ≤ j ≤ n, that we have π(Fi (x)) = hFi (a) + Ti (u), Fi (u)i. This is equivalent to showing hr(Fi(x)), Fi (x)i/∆ = hFi (rx), Fi (x)i/∆ + hr(Fi (x)), Fi (rx)i/∆. If we use that 0 = hFi (rx), Fi (rx)i/∆ and a + b = d(a, 0, b), and that d(y, z, z) = y when y ζ z, then the computation checks out. Corollary 7.2. An algebra in a modular variety V is 2–step nilpotent if and only if it can be represented as Q0 ⊗T Q1 where Q0 and Q1 are Abelian algebras in V. Proof. On one hand, if A in Proposition 7.1 is 2–step nilpotent, then B is Abelian. On the other hand, if A = Q0 ⊗T Q1 ∈ V and Q0 , Q1 ∈ V are Abelian, then it is clear (from Def. 5.1.) that the projection congruence η of A onto Q1 satisfies η ≤ ζA , and true also that [1, 1] ≤ η since Q1 is Abelian. The next few results give additional information about nilpotent algebras. They show nilpotency has some rather strong consequences. Exercise 7, at the end of the chapter, shows that solvable algebras do not have these properties in general. By Proposition 4.4 and Proposition 4.5 the nilpotent algebras of class k in a modular variety from a subvariety. By Theorem 6.2, if A is nilpotent then V (A) is permutable. Thus for the next few results we assume our algebras lie in a permutable variety U with Mal’cev term p(x, y, z). Define terms fn (y, b, c) inductively by f0 (y, b, c) = y and fn+1 (y, b, c) = p(b, p(b, y, p(fn(y, b, c), b, c)), fn (y, b, c)).


55

The congruence (1, 1]k defined in Definition 6.1. will be denoted (1]k . A is nilpotent if only if (1]k = 0 for some k. The next lemma shows that the function x 7→ fn (x, b, c) is the inverse to the function x 7→ p(x, b, c) if A is nilpotent of class n. Lemma 7.3. If A ∈ U and x, y, b, c ∈ A the for all n fn (p(x, b, c), b, c) (1]n x. and p(fn (y, b, c), b, c) (1]n y. Proof. We prove the second relation: the proof of the first is similar but easier. Induct on n. Since (1]0 = 1 the result is trivial for n = 0. Let y ′ = p(fn (y, b, c), b, c). By induction y ′ (1]n y. In the algebra A/(1]n+1, (1]n is contained in the center. Hence by Theorem 5.7 (since b = p(b, y, y) (1]n p(b, y, y ′)) p(fn+1 (y, b, c), b, c) = p((p(b, p(b, y, y ′), fn (y, b, c)), b, c) = p(p(b, p(b, y, y ′), fn (y, b, c)), p(b, b, b), p(b, b, c)) ≡ p(p(b, b, b), p((p(b, y, y ′), b, b), p(fn (y, b, c), b, c)) (mod (1]n+1 ) = p(b, p(b, y, y ′), y ′). Thus p(fn+1 (y, b, c), b, c) (1]n+1 p((b, p(b, y, y ′), y ′). The following matrix lies in M((1]n , 1) (see Definition 3.2). p(b, p(b, y, y ′), y ′) p(b, p(b, b, y ′ ), y ′) p(b, p(b, y, y ′), y ′) b = p(b, p(b, y, y), y) p(b, p(b, b, y), y) y b Hence

y (1]n+1 p(b, p(b, y, y ′), y ′) (1]n+1 p(fn+1 (y, b, c), b, c). Corollary 7.4. If A ∈ U is nilpotent and b, c ∈ A then the function x 7→ p(x, b, c) is on-one and onto. Moreover if θ ∈ Con A then this function, restricted to b/θ, is a bijection from b/θ to c/θ. Proof. The first statement is clear from Lemma 7.3. If f denotes the restricted function then f is clearly one-one and if x ∈ b/θ then f (x) ∈ c/θ. Since A/θ is also nilpotent the function, x 7→ p(x, b, c) induces a permutation of the θ–blocks. Hence the inverse images of every element of c/θ under this function lie in b/θ. Since x 7→ p(x, b, c) is onto it follows that f is also. Corollary 7.5. If A is nilpotent then A has uniform congruences (i.e., all the blocks of any congruence θ have the same size).

56


Lemma 7.6. If A ∈ U is nilpotent and a, b, c ∈ A then Cg(a, b) = Cg(p(a, b, c), c) Proof. Suppose (1]n = 0 in A. Then p(fn (c, b, c), b, c) = c = p(b, b, c). Hence fn (c, b, c) = b. Now let ψ = Cg(p(a, b, c), c). Clearly ψ ≤ Cg(a, b). But p(a, b, c) ψ c implies a = fn (p(a, b, c), b, c) ψ fn (c, b, c) = b. Corollary 7.7. If A is nilpotent then A has regular congruences, i.e., if two congruences have a block in common, they are equal. In Chapter 5 we saw that Abelian algebras were closely connected with Abelian groups. Nilpotent algebras have a close connection with nilpotent loops. For suppose A ∈ U is nilpotent. Let 0 be an arbitrary element of A and define x + y = p(x, 0, y). Then by Corollary 7.4. this defines a loop with null element 0. Moreover by Lemma 7.3. the left and right division operations (perhaps we should call them subtraction operations) are also polynomials on A. Also note that by Theorem 5.7 if a ζ 0 and x, y ∈ A then a + x = x + a, a + (x + y) = (a + x) + y, and (x + a) + y = x + (a + y). In Exercise 7 we show how to construct solvable algebras in which the properties above fail. Proposition 7.8. Let B be subdirectly irreducible with 0B < ζB , and let B′ = B2 /∆1,ζ . Then B′ is subdirectly irreducible and B′ /ζB′ , ∼ = (B/ζB )2 . Proof. We write ∆ for ∆1,ζ and us the notation for congruences on B2 introduced before Theorem 4.11. Let β be the monolith of B (smallest nonzero congruence). So we have β ≤ ζ, and ∆ + ηi = ζi, ∆ · ηi = 0, (i = 0, 1) by 4.11. We claim first that (β0 ∧ β1 ) ∨ ∆ is the unique smallest congruence of B2 strictly above ∆. To see it, first 0 6= β0 ∧ η1 ≤ β0 ∧ β1 , ∆ ∧ η1 = 0, so β0 ∧ β1 6≤ ∆. Suppose that λ > ∆ in Con B2 . Notice that β1 is the unique atom in 1/η1 ∼ = Con B, hence since 1/η1 transposes down onto η0 /0, η0 ∧ β1 is the unique atom below η0 . Likewise for β0 ∧ η1 below η1 . Now ∆ ∨ (β0 ∧ η1 ) ≥ η0 ∧ β1 because choosing hx, yi ∈ β − 0B , we have hx, xi∆hy, yiβ0 ∧ η1 hx, yi, and hence (∆ ∨ (β0 ∧ η1 )) ∧ η0 6= 0, so it contains η0 ∧ β1 . Thus if λ ∧ η1 6= 0, then λ ≥ β0 ∧ η1 and also λ > ∆, so λ ≥ β0 · β1 . Symmetrically, we are finished with the proof of the claim unless λ ∧ η0 = λ ∧ η1 = 0. This assumption leads to a contradiction: by modularity, λ ∨ η0 = χ0 for some χ > ζ (else η0 is a common complement of λ and ∆ in ζ0 /0). [χ0 , 1] = [χ, 1]0 ∧ [1, 1]1 by Proposition 4.5. Also [χ0 , 1] = [λ ∨ η0 , η1 ∨ η0 ] ≤ η0 ∨ (λ ∧ η1 ) = η0 by

EXERCISES

57

additivity of commutator. The two equalities for [χ0 , 1] yield [χ, 1] = 0, implying χ ≤ ζ, a contradiction. Next we claim that ζ0 ∧ζ1 = ζ ′ is the largest γ ∈ Con B2 satisfying [γ, 1] ≤ ∆. First, [ζ ′ , 1] = 0 follows from Proposition 4.5 (in fact ζ ′ is the center of B2 ). Second, suppose that γ ∈ Con B2 , [γ, 1] ≤ ∆. Then [γ, 1] = [γ, η0 ∨ η1 ] ≤ η0 ∨ [γ, η1 ] and [γ, η1 ] ≤ [γ, 1] ∧ η1 ≤ ∆ ∧ η1 = 0. Thus [γ, 1] ≤ η0 . Similarly with subscripts interchanged, so [γ, 1] = 0. By (4.40 applied to the first projection homomorphism, γ ≤ ζ0 , similarly γ ≤ ζ1 . Thus the second claim is proved. The first claim tells us that B′ is subdirectly irreducible and the second tells us that ζ0 ∧ ζ1 ≥ ∆ projects onto the center of B′ . Thus B′ /ζB′ ∼ = (B/ζ)2 obviously. = B2 /(ζ0 ∧ ζ1 ) ∼ This proposition was in the first draft manuscript of Freese-McKenzie[29], and later deleted. A much stronger result was proved by the same method. Let B be subdirectly irreducible with monolith β, and let γ = (0 : β) be the centralizer of β, and let σ be the centralizer of γ. Suppose that β ≤ σ < γ. Then the algebra B′ = B(γ)/∆γ,σ can be proved to be subdirectly irreducible, and we have β, ≤ σ ′ < γ ′ where these congruences are defined for B′ as for B. From here, the unpublished argument showed that B′′ is isomorphic to a proper essential extension of B′ . This construction was iterated through the transfinite to build a tower B(α) , α an ordinal, of subdirectly irreducible algebras. The argument was motivated by Herrmann’s original proof of the fundamental theorem of Abelian algebras. Corollaries 7.5 and 7.7 are due to C. Bergman. The fact that the inverse to the function x 7→ p(x, b, c) is a polynomial function in a nilpotent variety is new. Exercises 1. It is well known that if G is a non-Abelian group then G/Z is not cyclic. Use Proposition 7.2 to construct a nilpotent loop L of order 9 with L/ζ ∼ = Z/3. 2. Show that a nilpotent (in fact any) loop with four elements is an Abelian group. 3. Show that if A is nilpotent and θ > 0 in Con A then θ∧ζ > 0. 4. Show that if A is a finite nilpotent algebra and B is a subalgebra of A, then |B| divides |A|.

58


5. Let A be a nilpotent loop such that |A| = p2 , p a prime, and |A/ζ| = p. Show that A is one-generated (but it is not necessarily a cyclic group). 6. U, p, fn are defined before Lemma 7.3. Prove that q(x, y, z) = fn (x, z, y) is a Mal’cev term for any n–step nilpotent algebra in U. 7. Let G and H be Abelian groups and let A be their disjoint union. Define a ternary operation p(x, y, z) on A as follows. If x, y and z all lie in one of the groups, let p(x, y, z) = x − y + z. Otherwise two of x, y and z lie in one group and the other lies in the other group. In this case p(x, y, z) is the one that is alone. Show V (A) is permutable and A is solvable. Use this to show the results Lemma 7.3–Corollary 7.7 cannot be extended to solvable algebras. 8. Prove the first relation in Lemma 7.3. 9. Show that if A and all its homomorphic images have uniform congruences then A has regular congruences (see Corollary 7.7).

CHAPTER 8

Congruence Identities If an equation ε of the language of lattices holds in Con A for every A ∈ V (where V is a variety) then we write V |=con ε, and say that ε is a congruence identity of V. The most important congruence identities are the modular law and the distributive law (and of course this whole book is about the consequences of congruence modularity). In the early 1970’s it was conjectured that possibly any nontrivial lattice law holding as a congruence identity of a variety must imply congruence modularity. The conjecture turned out to be false (Polin [74], see also Day-Freese [23]). In other words, there exist nonmodular varieties having nontrival congruence identities. As for the possible diversity of such identities, and their consequences for the structure of the algebras in a variety, our understanding is still very limited. There is an excellent survey article on this topic in the appendix to Grätzer [34], written by B. Jónsson. (On this topic, see also Example 11.2. and the entirety of Chapter 13.) Recent studies of modular varieties have revealed that many popular properties of a variety are intimately connected with commutator identities for the congruences. For example, we shall see in Chapter 10, Section 3 that a residually small modular variety must satisfy α ∧ [β, β] = [α ∧ β, β] (for congruences α and β in any algebra of the variety), and that this equation is also sufficient for residual smallness if the variety is generated by a finite algebra. In this chapter we shall consider three special equations very much like the example above, as well as familiar equations like the nilpotency and solvability laws. These equations are not written in the pure language of lattices, but rather are equations in the language of algebras hL, x ∧ y, x ∨ y, [x, y], 0, 1i which are lattices with 0 and 1 and an additional binary operation [x, y]. As usual, all varieties encountered are assumed to be modular and all algebras belong to modular varieties, so these equations can be evaluated in the congruence lattices. For an equation ε of this kind we shall write V |=con ε with just the same

59

60

8. CONGRUENCE IDENTITIES

meaning as above, and we shall consider the equation as a possible congruence identity of a variety. Equations involving only lattice ∨ and ∧, with no commutators, will be called pure lattice equations. A systematic theory of congruence identities including the commutator does not exist at this time. Our aim here is to survey some of the interesting results that have been discovered, and stimulate the reader to think about the subject. All of the equations we shall discuss are listed below. (C1)

x ∧ [y, y] ≈ [x ∧ y, y]

(C2)

[x, y] ≈ x ∧ y ∧ [1, 1]

(C3)

[x, y] ≈ x ∧ y

(C4)

[x, y] ≈ 0

(C5)

[1, 1] ≈ 0

(C6)

1, [1, 1]] ≈ 0

(C7)

[[1, 1], [1, 1]] ≈ 0

(C8)

[x, 1] ≈ x

For each of these equations, the property Con A |= ε is preserved under the formation of quotient algebras and the formation of finite subdirect products. We shall prove this fact for (C1) (Theorem 8.1) and the reader can easily discover the proofs for the other equations. (C4) (C7) are preserved under the formation of subalgebras and products of any length, while each of the other equations falls to possess either one of these preservation properties. Thus a variety generated by algebras whose congruence lattices satisfy (Ci), (i ∈ {4, 5, 6, 7}) obeys (Ci) as a congruence identity. It can be shown, for each of the equations (C1)– (C8), that a directed union of algebras whose congruences obey the equation must itself have this property. Equations (C4) and (C5) are equivalent for any algebra, and define the class of Abelian algebras. A variety satisfying (C4) is called Abelian. (C6) defines the two step nilpotent algebras. (See Corollary 7.2 for the structure of these algebras.) An equally obvious equation defines the n step nilpotent algebras. For a given modular variety V, there exists a set En of equations in the language of V such that an algebra A is n step nilpotent if and only if A |= En . (This result


61

is due to Gumm; see Theorem 14.2.) (C7) defines the two step solvable algebras. The n step solvable algebras within a given variety also constitute a subvariety. We may remark that the (ordinary) equations defining this subvariety are much more difficult to construct than the equations for nilpotency. Equation (C3) defines the class of congruence distributive varieties. The proof is easy (see Exercise 1). An algebra A such that Con A |= (C3) is called neutral. From the fact that finite subdirect products and quotients of neutral algebras are neutral, it follows easily that the join of two distributive subvarieties of a modular variety is distributive (a result of Hagemann and Herrmann, see Exercise 2). This in turn implies that a locally finite modular W variety V has a largest distributive subvariety. To see this, let W = i∈I Vi where Vi (i ∈ I) are the distributive subvarieties of V. Then FW(3) is finite (a quotient of FV(3)) and is a subdirect product of the FVi (3). Hence it is a finite subdirect product of these algebras, and is neutral. This implies that Con FV(3) is distributive (see Exercise 1), and so V is distributive by Jónsonn’s Theorem 2.1. An example showing that modularity is a necessary assumption for this result can be found in Chapter 11. The variety of rings is an example of a (nonlocally finite) modular variety having no largest distributive subvariety. Equations (C1), (C2), and (C8) are rather different in their implications from the other equations. Let us consider first (C1). This equation implies the equation [x, [x, x]] ≈ [x, x]. Therefore. in a variety with this congruence identity, every nilpotent algebra is Abelian, and every nilpotent congruence is Abelian. It is known that a locally finite variety of groups, or of rings, satisfies (C1) if and only if every nilpotent algebra in the variety is Abelian. An algebra whose congruences obey (C1) has a largest Abelian congruences. (See Exercise 5.) Consider an algebra A such that L = Con A satisfies (C1). For any β ∈ L define a mapping of L into L by taking fβ (x) = [x, β]. Then fβ (β) = [β, β] is a fixed point for fβ as we observed above. In fact, (C1) implies that fβ (x) = x for all x ≤ fβ (β). This property of the fixed points of fβ (holding for all β) is equivalent to (C1). Also each of the equations [x, y] ≈ (x ∧ [y, y]) ∨ (y ∧ [x, x]) [x, y] ≈ x ∧ y ∧ [x ∨ y, x ∨ y] is equivalent to (C1). Thus if L = Con A satisfies (C1) then the commutator in L is determined by the unary operation f (x) = [x, x] and the lattice operations.

62


It is not hard to show that (C1) implies (for congruence lattices in a modular variety) the equation ([1, 1] ∧ x) ∨ ([1, 1] ∧ y) ≈ [1, 1] ∧ (x ∨ y). which with the aid of the modular law implies ([1, 1] ∨ x) ∧ ([1, 1] ∨ y) ≈ [1, 1] ∨ (x ∧ y). The two displayed equations are actually equivalent in modular lattices; either of them signifies that [1,1] is a neutral element. In the same vein. If L = Con A satisfies (C1) and β ∈ L then [β, β] is a neutral element in the interval lattice β/0A. Using these facts, A. Day and E. Kiss [22] prove that if a locally finite nondistributive variety V has (C1) as congruence identity, then the pure congruence identities (lattice equations) of V are the same as the pure congruence identities possessed by the variety of modules over the ring of the maximal Abelian subvariety of V. (See Chapter 9 for the definition of this ring.) We say that an algebra A satisfies a commutator equation hereditarily if the equation holds in the congruence lattice of every subalgebra of A. The next result was proved in the paper of R. Freese and R. McKenzie [29]. Theorem 8.1. The equation (C1) is equivalent to the implication x ≤ [y, y] → x = [x, y]. Moreover, the class of algebras which satisfy (C1) hereditarily is closed under the formation of quotient algebras, subalgebras, and finite direct products. Proof. First suppose that the implication holds. Clearly x ∧ [y, y] ≤ [y, y]. Thus using the implication with x as x ∧ [y, y] we obtain x ∧ [y, y] = [x ∧ [y, y], y] ≤ [x ∧ y, y] ≤ x ∧ [y, y]. Thus (C1) holds. Conversely if x ≤ [y, y], then (C1) gives x = x ∧ [y, y] = [x ∧ y, y] = [x, y]. Now for the second statement. For subalgebras, the proof is trivial. For quotient algebras, let A satisfy (C1) hereditarily and C ≤ A/θ for some θ ∈ Con A. Then C = B/γ where B ≤ A. If (C1) fails for C then there are µ, ν ∈ Con B, µ, ν ≥ γ, satisfying (by Remarks 4.6) ν ≤ [µ, µ]γ = [µ, µ] ∨ γ while [ν, µ]γ = [ν, µ] ∨ γ < ν. Then ν ≤ µ and [ν, µ] 6≥ [µ, µ] ∧ ν, else [ν, µ] ∨ γ ≥ ([µ, µ] ∧ ν) ∨ γ ≥ ν by modularity. Thus (C1) fails in Con B, a contradiction. For products, suppose that C = A × B where A, B satisfy (C1) hereditarily, and D ≤ C. We can clearly assume that the projections map D onto A and B, i.e. p0 (D) = A, p1 (D) = B . Let η1 = kerpi (i = 0, 1). Now suppose that σ, µ ∈ Con D and ν = σ ∧ [µ, µ]. We shall show that ν ≤ [ν, µ] (which implies σ ∧ [µ, µ] = [σ ∧ µ, µ]) . Since ν ≤ [µ, µ] we have ν ∨ η0 ≤ [µ ∨ η0 , µ ∨ η0 ]η0 . Since A satisfies (C1),


63

then ν ∨ η0 = [ν ∨ η0 , µ ∨ η0 ]η0 = [ν, µ] ∨ η0 . Thus ν = ν ∧([ν, µ]∨η0 ) = [ν, µ]∨(η0 ∧ν). Likewise ν = [ν, µ]∨(η1 ∧ν). In just the same way we can show that (η1 ∧ ν) ∨ η0 = [(η1 ∧ ν) ∨ η0 , µ ∨ η0 ]η0 and η1 ∧ ν ≤ [η1 ∧ ν, µ] ∨ η0 . Thus η1 ∧ ν = [η1 ∧ ν, µ] ∨ (η0 ∧ η1 ∧ ν) = [η1 ∧ ν, µ]. Therefore ν = [ν, µ] ∨ (η1 ∧ ν) = [ν, µ] ∨ [η1 ∧ ν, µ] = [ν, µ]. The second statement in Theorem 8.1 holds for each of the equations (C1) - (C8). The proofs are quite similar to the one above. We turn now to consider (C2). This equation clearly implies (C1): moreover it is rather directly implied by each of the equations (C3) and (C4). The next theorem will yield the conclusion (which is Exercise 6) that any congruence equation implied both by (C3) and (C4) is implied also by (C2). Theorem 8.2. The congruence lattice of an algebra satisfies one of the following if and only if it satisfies all. (1)

[x, y] ≈ x ∧ y ∧ [1.1]

(2)

[x, x] ≈ x ∧ [1, 1]

(3)

[x, y] ≈ [x, 1] ∧ y

(4)

[x ∧ y, z] ≈ x ∧ [y, z]

(5)

x ≤ [1, 1] ⇒ [x, x] = x

Proof. Using the commutative law of the commutator and other basic properties of commutators, one easily shows that (1) implies each of (2), (3), (4) and that each of these equations implies (5). We shall now prove that (5) implies (1). Suppose that (5) holds in Con A and let congruences α and β be given. That [α, β] ≤ α ∧ β ∧ [1, 1] is clear. Let σ = α ∧ β ∧ [1, 1]. Thus σ = [σ, σ] by (5), and it’s clear that [σ, σ] ≤ [α, β]. Thus we conclude that (1) holds. Theorem 8.3. A variety V has (C2) as congruence identity if and only if every non-Abelian subdirectly irreducible algebra in V has a nonAbelian monolith.

64


Proof. In one direction (necessity of the condition) this is immediate from the last theorem (the equivalence of (1) and (5)). For the converse (sufficiency of the condition), assume that V does not satisfy (C2). Then we can choose A ∈ V and a congruence λ of A such that [λ, λ] < λ ≤ [1, 1] (by the previous theorem). There exists a congruence σ such that [λ, λ] ≤ σ, λ 6≤ σ, and A/σ is subdirectly irreducible. Let σ ˆ > σ be the congruence corresponding to the monolith of A/σ. Then λ ∨ σ ≥ σ ˆ , so that [ˆ σ, σ ˆ ] ≤ [λ, λ] ∨ σ ≤ σ, implying that the monolith of A/σ is Abelian. (See Proposition 4.4.) Since [1, 1] 6≤ σ, we also have that A/σ is non-Abelian. A congruence β of an algebra is called prime if and only if β ≥ [σ, γ] always implies β ≥ σ or β ≥ γ. An algebra is called prime if and only if the commutator of any two of its non-zero congruences is nonzero. Theorem 8.3 says that a variety satisfies (C2) if and only if its subdirectly irreducible algebras are Abelian or prime. It is known that a locally finite variety of groups having this property must be Abelian. However, quite a few well studied properties of varieties are known to imply (C2). The equation arose first in the investigation of locally finite varieties with decidable first order theory (in Burris-McKenzie [8]). All such decidable varieties satisfy (C2). Semi-simple varieties (in which the subdirectly irreducible algebras are simple) obviously satisfy (C2). (It follows from Theorem 8.3). An algebra A is said to have the congruence extension property if and only if for every subalgebra B ≤ A and congruence β on B, there is a congruence α on A for which α|B = β. A variety has the congruence extension property if all of its algebras have the property. E.Kiss [55] has proved that every modular variety with the congruence extension property satisfies (C2). Our next theorem (and Theorem 8.2) are due to him. Theorem 8.4. Suppose that A × A has the congruence extension property. Then Con A |= (C2). Moreover, if α, β ∈ Con A and B ≤ A the [α|B , β|B ] = [α, β]|B . Proof. We assume throughout the argument that A2 has the congruence extension property. To prove that (C2) holds, we use the equivalent from (3) from Theorem 8.2. Let α, β ∈ Con A. We are to show that [α, β] ⊇ [α, 1] ∧ β. Let ∆β,α be the congruence on A(β), and ∆1,α be the congruence on A2 , defined in Definition 4.7. These congruences are generated in the respective algebras by the same set. Thus since A2 has the congruence extension property, it follows that ∆1,α |A(β) = ∆β,α .


65

Now suppose that hx, yi ∈ [α, 1] ∧ β. We can employ Theorem 4.9. We have that hx, yi, hx, xi ∈ A(β) and hx, yi ≡ hx, xi (mod ∆1,α ). Therefore hx, yi ≡ hx, xi (mod ∆β,α ), implying that hx, yi ∈ [α, β] as desired. To prove the other commutator property (restriction of commutators), let α and β be as before, and let B ≤ A. We first observe that our hypothesis implies that B2 has the congruence extension property, and thus by what was proved, the congruences in B satisfy (C2). Using (C2) in both algebras, we see that it will suffice to prove the restriction property in the case α = 1A = β : i.e. to prove that [1A , 1A ]|B = [1B , 1B ]. Let λ be the congruence on A generated by the set 1B . Clearly ∆1A ,λ = CgA2 (∆1B ,1B ). Thus ∆1B ,1B = ∆1A ,λ |B2 implying that [1A , λ]|B = [1B , 1B ]. Now using (C2) for A and the fact that λ ≥ 1B we get the desired equation [1A , 1A ]|B = [1B , 1B ]. Several of the useful properties possessed by the commutator in every modular variety can be written as congruence identities, namely [x, y] ≈ [y, x] ≈ x ∧ y ∧ [x, y]. and [x, y ∨ z] ≈ [x, y] ∨ [x, z]. Although (C3) is a congruence identity of every distributive variety, it is easy to show that it cannot be derived from the basic equations above and the equations defining distributive lattices in the same way we proved Theorem 8.2 (using only the machinery of equational logic). Likewise, (C8) is equivalent for varieties to the equation [1, 1] ≈ 1; and this equivalence is a theorem not of equational logic, but of commutator theory. Theorem 8.5. The following are equivalent for a variety V. 1. V |=con [x, 1] ≈ x. 2. V |=con [1, 1] ≈ 1. 3. V does not possess nontrivial Abelian algebras. 4. Every algebra A ∈ V is centerless, i.e., ζA = 0A . 5. If A, B ∈ V, then Con(A×B) ∼ = Con A×Con B naturally. Proof. The equivalences (1) ⇐⇒ (4) and (2) ⇐⇒ (3) are immediate. Moreover (4) ⇒ (3) is trivial. The (surprising) implication (3)

66


⇒ (4) is by Proposition 7.1. Thus (1)–(4) are seen to be mutually equivalent. Next we show that (5) ⇒ (1). Suppose that we have A ∈ V and β ∈ Con A and (5) holds. The meaning of (5) is that every congruence of A2 should be of the form γ0 ∧δ1 , where γ and δ are congruences of A and hx, yi ≡ hu, vi (mod γ0 ) if and only if hx, ui ∈ γ, and hx, yi ≡ hu, vi (mod δ1 ) if and only if hy, vi ∈ δ. Now suppose that ∆1A ,β = γ0 ∧ δ1 . Since hx, xi ∆1A ,β hy, yi whenever hx, yi ∈ β it follows that β ≤ γ ∧ δ. But now β0 ∧ β1 ≤ γ0 ∧ δ1 = δ1A ,β . This certainly implies that [β, 1A ] = [1A , β] = β by Theorem 4.9. We conclude the proof by showing that (1) ⇒ (5). Suppose that (1) holds and that θ ∈ Con(A × B) with A, B ∈ V. We write η0 , η1 for the kernels of the projection homomorphisms. It will suffice to show that θ = θ¯ where θ¯ = (η0 ∨ θ) ∧ (η1 ∨ θ). Now ¯ ≤ [η0 ∨ η1 , η0 ∨ θ] ≤ η0 ∨ (η1 ∧ θ). [1, θ] ¯ ≤ η1 ∨ (η0 ∧ θ). Thus and similarly [1, θ] ¯ ≤ (η0 ∨ (η1 ∧ θ)) ∧ (η1 ∨ (η0 ∧ θ)) ≤ θ θ¯ = [1, θ] by two applications of the modular law and the fact that η0 ∧η1 ≤ θ. Remark 8.6. It is an immediate consequence of the theorem that a modular variety obeys (C8) if and only if the finite products of its algebras possess no skew (see Exercise 3) congruences. Compare this with the fact that a modular variety obeys (C3) (is distributive) if and only if the finite subdirect products of its algebras possess no skew congruences. The variety of rings with unit obeys (C8). See Exercise 8 for an interesting application of (C8): An algebra whose congruences obey (C8) has the refinement property (Chang-Jónsson-Tarski [11]) for direct decompositions, and so can be represented in at most one way as a direct product of directly indecomposable algebras. Remark 8.7. A variety is distributive if and only if all of its algebras generated by three elements have distributive congruence lattices. A variety is modular if and only if all of its algebras generated by four elements have modular congruence lattices. These facts are immediate consequences of Theorems 2.1 and 2.2. Much more generally, it can be proved that every congruence equation expressed in the operations x ∨ y, x ∧ y, [x, y] and 0 and 1 is local - holds in a modular variety V if and only if it holds in every finitely generated algebra in V. Remark 8.8. We remarked that each of the equations (C1)–(C8) is preserved under the formation of quotient algebras. This is not true of


67

every congruence equation, as may be seen by considering this equation which is weaker than (C1): [x, x] ∧ [y, y] ≤ [x, y]. Let G be a group with |Z(G)| = 2, G/Z(G) non-Abelian, and Z(G) the only nontrival normal subgroup of G, for example G = SLP roposition 4.3. This information determines the commutator operation on Con G. Now Con(G × G) is the lattice of Figure 1. 1 α0

α1

η0

η1 π 0 Figure 1.

Every congruence of G × G is a direct product congruence except π. Thus the commutator on Con(G × G) is determined by Proposition 4.5(3), and by the fact the π is in the center. For example, [α0 , α0 ] = η0 . Using these facts, the reader can show that the equation above holds in Con(G × G). However, it fails in (G × G)/π (take x = α0 /π and y = α1 /π). Remark 8.9. Each of the equations (C1)–(C8) is preserved under finite subdirect products, and also had the property that it holds as a congruence identity of a variety V if and only if it holds in the congruence lattice of each subdirectly irreducible algebra in V. Now if ε is a congruence equation that is preserved by taking quotient algebras and finite subdirect products then, since the validity of ε is in addition a local property, we can conclude that for any finite algebra F, V (F) |=con ε if and only if F satisfies ε hereditarily. In particular, it follows that a finite algebra F generates a distributive variety if and only if F is hereditarily neutral (satisfies (C3) hereditarily). This is a result of Hagemann-Hermann [44]. Problem 8.10. Find some simple commutator equations that hold in every modular variety, but do not follow in equational logic from the

68


equations defining modular lattices and the equations expressing commutativity and additivity of the commutator, and the equation [x, y] ≤ x ∧ y. (The Arguesian equation of B. Jónsson is one example, but it is a pure equation, without commutator, and is rather complex.) Problem 8.11. Is it true that for every modular and nondistributive variety V, the pure congruence identities are the same as the pure congruence identities possessed by the variety of modules over the ring of the maximal Abelian subvariety of V? This problem was refuted by P. P. Pálfy and C. Szabó in [69] and [68]; see Chapter 15 where some positive results along these lines are also presented. Exercises 1. Show that if Con A |= [x, y] ≈ x ∧ y then Con A is a distributive lattice. 2. An algebra whose congruence lattice obeys (C3) is said to be neutral. Prove that a subdirect product of finitely many neutral algebras is neutral. Consequently, the join of two distributive subvarieties of a modular variety is distributive. 3. If A ⊆ A0 × A1 is a subdirect product, a congruence α of A is said to be skew if and only if α is not of the form γ0 ∧ ∆1 (with γ ∈ Con A0 and ∆ ∈ Con A1 ). Prove the equivalence of the following statements for any modular variety. (See the proof of Theorem 8.5.) (i) V is distributive, (ii) V |=con (C3) , (iii) Subdirect products of two (or of n) algebras in V have no skew congruences. 4. Prove that in any modular lattice L with 0 and 1, an element a satisfies a ∧ (x ∨ y) = (a ∧ x) ∨ (a ∧ y) for all elements x and y if and only if a satisfies (a ∨ x) ∧ (a ∨ y) = a ∨ (x ∧ y) for all elements x and y if and only if the mapping x → ha ∨ x, a ∧ xi is a subdirect embedding of L into the product of its interval sublattices 1/a and a/0. (Such an element a is called neutral.) Conclude that if Con A |= (C1) then Con A is subdirectly embeddable into (1A /[1A , 1A ]) × ([1A , 1A ]/0A ).

EXERCISES

69

5. Show that if Con A |= (C1) the the join of two Abelian congruences of A is Abelian. Then conclude that A has a largest Abelian congruence. 6. Show that a congruence equation is implied by (C2) if and only if it is implied by each of (C3) and (C4). [There is a way to use the result of Exercise 4. This exercise is true whether “imply” is construed in the sense of equational logic (the basic commutator equations and the modular law being implicatly assumed) or in the sense that every variety obeying the one as a congruence equation obeys also the other.] 7. Show that rings with unit obey (C8). 8. Suppose that Con A |= (C8). Let α and β be complements in Con A such that α ◦ β = β ◦ α. Show that the mapping λ → β ∨λ is an endomorphism of Con A that commutes with the complete lattice operations. (This is essentially the strict refinement property of Chang-Jónsson-Tarski.) 9. Let k be a positive integer not less than 3. Let hV, +, −, 0i be a group of cardinality 2k satisfying x + x = 0 (i.e. a vector space of dimension k over the 2 element field). Let · and ⊕ be any operations such that hV, ·, ⊕i is a lattice. Let A be the algebra whose universe is V and basic operations are +, −, f defined by   xk · xk+1 if x0 , . . . , xk−1 are f (x0 , . . . , xk+1 ) = linearly independent  0 otherwise and a k + 2-ary operation g defined the same way from ⊕. Prove that A is neutral, but that every algebra generated by k − 1 or fewer elements in V (A) is Abelian.

10. Prove that a variety of groups has the congruence extension property if and only if the variety consists of Abelian groups.

CHAPTER 9

Rings Associated With Modular Varieties: Abelian Varieties Let V be a modular variety and let A be all Abelian algebras in V. By Proposition 4.4 and Proposition 4.5, A is a subvariety of V. Let A ∈ V, and let β ∈ Con A be an Abelian congruence. Recall that, by Corollary 5.8, each block of β is an Abelian group with addition x + y = d(x, z, y), where z is any fixed element of the block and of course d is a Gumm difference term. Moreover the unary polynomials of A induce affine maps (i.e., maps which preserve d(x, y, z)) between the β blocks. In this chapter we will construct matrix rings for V, acting on the direct sum of the blocks, which capture these affine actions. In this way the direct sum of the blocks becomes a module over one of our rings. There is a strong connection between the structure of this module and the structure of A (see, for example, Theorem 9.9). Several of the results of this chapter will be applied in the subsequent chapters. In the case V is Abelian, i.e. V = A, only one of these rings is needed and the variety V is closely related (in fact polynomially equivalent) to the variety of modules over this ring. The connection, which is actually stronger than this, is established at the end of the chapter. Before commencing with the constructions and proofs, let us remark that affine algebras and varieties composed of then have been studied, for different reasons, by a number of authors since Osterman and Schmidt first (it seems) gave them serious consideration in [67]. The papers of Bela Csakany, [16] and [17], and Gumm’s [37], have between them a good set of references to this literature. Chapters 4 and 5 of Smith’s book [79] should also be consulted. In our opinion the treatment presented here is essentially novel, and more satisfactory in several respects than the previous treatments. (Our readers, of course, will have their own opinions.) Nevertheless, the subject is not as easy as it first looks and work remains to be done. As stated above the results of this chapter will be useful in some of the applications presented in the later chapters. The detailed description of Abelian varieties given at the end of the chapter has been applied in Baldwin-McKenzie [1], Burris-McKenzie [8], and McKenzie [63]. 71

72

9. RINGS ASSOCIATED WITH MODULAR VARIETIES

Let A ∈ V, z, z ′ ∈ A and let β be an Abelian congruence on A. Recall that M(β, z) is the β block, z/β, of A containing z and that it is an Abelian group under x + y = d(x, z, y) with z as the zero element. Let Hom(β, z, z ′ ) denote the set of functions g : M(β, z) → M(β, z ′ ) of the form g(x) = f (x, z, z ′ , c0 , . . . , ck−1 )

(1)

where c0 , . . . , ck−1 ∈ A and f is a k + 3-ary term, k < ω, such that V satisfies f (v, v, v ′, y0 , . . . , yk−1) ≈ v ′ .

(2)

The next lemma gives a much simpler description of Hom(β, z, z ′ ) and shows that it does not depend on V. Lemma 9.1. Hom(β, z, z ′ ) is the set of restrictions to z/β of unary polynomials on A which map z to z ′ . Proof. Let h be a (k + 1)-ary term such that h(z, c0 , . . . , ck−1) = z ′ . Define a term f by f (u, v, v ′, y) = d(h(u, y), h(v, y), v ′) where y = (y0 , . . . , yk−1 ). Clearly V satisfies (2) and, since β is Abelian. f (x, z, z ′ , c0 , . . . , ck−1 ) = h(x, c0 , . . . , ck−1 ) for all x ∈ M(β, z) by Theorem 5.5(ii)

By Corollary 5.8 each g ∈ Hom(β, z, z ′ ) is a group homomorphism from M(β, z) into M(β, z ′ ). Hom(β, z, z ′ ) is an Abelian group under the operation (g + h)(x) = d(g(x), z ′ , h(x)), for g, h ∈ Hom(β, z, z ′ ). If z ′′ is another element of A and if g ∈ Hom(β, z, z ′ ) and h ∈ Hom(β, z ′ , z ′′ ) then we define hg by hg(x) = h(g(x)), of course. As an exercise the reader can show that the distributive laws hold. In particular, Hom(β, z, z) is a ring with 1. Also note that if f (x1 , . . . , xn ) is a polynomial on A and f (z1 , . . . , zn ) = z then f defines a group homomorphism of M(β, z1 ) × · · · × M(β, zn ) into M(β, z), by Corollary 5.8. Moreover, if we let gi (xi ) = f (z1 , . . . , zi−1 , xi , zi+1 , . . . , zn ) then gi ∈ Hom(β, zi , z) and n X (3) f (x1 , . . . , xn ) = gi (xi ). i=1

If R is the ring of n by n matrices whose (i, j)th elements lie in Hom(β, zj , zi ), then this ring acts naturally on M(β, z1 )×· · ·×M(β, zn )


73

and by the equation displayed above a great deal of information about the algebraic structure of A is contained in this action. In this chapter we construct a class of matrix rings for V which will act on the direct sum of some of the blocks of an Abelian congruence. The class will have two parameters: λ, the size of the matrices, and κ, the number of constants. Thus let X = {u}∪{vi : i < λ}∪{yi : i < κ}, where λ ≥ 1 and κ ≥ 0 are cardinals and let F = FV(X). Let ei denote the endomorphism of F which sends u to vi and fixes all other generators. Let θi = Cg(u, vi). ¯ ij = Definition 9.2. Let Hij = {r ∈ F : ei r = vj } and let H {r/[θi , θi ] : r ∈ Hij }. If r = r(u, v, y) and s = s(u, v, y) are in Hij and t = t(u, v, y) is in Hjk then we define r + s = d(r, vj , s) (4)

−r = d(vj , r, vj ) t ◦ r = t(r, v, y)

Let πr denote the canonical projection of F onto F/[θi , θi ]. Operations ¯ ij ’s are defined by on the H πi (r) + πi (s) = πi (r + s) (5)

−πi (r) = πi (−r) πj (t) ◦ πi (r) = πi (t ◦ r)

Notice that Hij is simply the set of those elements of F which can be represented by a term r(u, v, y) such that r(vi , v, y) ≈ vj holds in V. ¯ ′ s are well defined It is easy to see that the above operations on the H ij except possibly for composition where the problem is to show that if t [θj , θj ] t′ , for some t, t′ ∈ Hjk , and r ∈ Hij then t ◦ r [θi , θi ] t′ ◦ r. Let ℓ be the endomorphism of F which sends u to r and fixes all other generators. Note that ei ℓ = ej (since r ∈ Hij ) and that ker ek = θk . Thus ℓ−1 (θi ) = θj . Indeed, (a, b) ∈ ker ej if and only if ej a = ej b if and only if ei ℓa = ei ℓb if only if (ℓa, ℓb) ∈ ker ei if and only if (a, b) ∈ ℓ−1 (ker ei ). Now using Proposition 4.4(2) and then Proposition 4.4(1) we have ℓ−1 [θi , θi ] ≥ ℓ−1 [θi |rng ℓ , θi |rng ℓ ] = ℓ−1 [ℓℓ−1 (θi ), ℓℓ−1 (θi )] = [ℓ−1 (θi ), ℓ−1 (θi )] ∨ ker ℓ ≥ [θj , θj ]

74


Hence ℓ[θj , θj ] ⊆ [θi , θi ]. Now t ◦ r = ℓ(t) and t′ ◦ r = ℓ(t′ ). Thus t ◦ r [θi , θi ] t′ ◦ r, as desired. ¯ ij is an Abelian group It follows easily from Proposition 5.7 that H with πi (vj ) as null element. The composition satisfies the associative and distributive laws. For example, if r, s ∈ Hij and t ∈ Hjk then since r θi vj θi s, we have by Proposition 5.7 t ◦ (r + s) = t(r + s, v, y) = t(d(r, vj , s), v, y) ≡ d(t(r, v, y), t(vj , v, y), t(s, v, y)) (mod [θi , θi ])) = d(t ◦ r, vk , t ◦ s) = t ◦ r + t ◦ s, proving the left distributive law. ¯ ii is a ring with 0 = πi (vi ) and 1 = πi (u). Also, by In particular H ¯ ij does not depend on Proposition 5.7, one can show that the group H the choice of d(x, y, z), so long as it satisfies Theorem 5.5(i,ii). Definition 9.3. Let R(V, λ, κ) be the ring of all λ by λ matrices ¯ ji such that each column contains only finitely many (mij ) with mij ∈ H nonzero entries. Addition and multiplication are the ordinary matrix operations. The zero of this ring is the matrix whose (i, j)th element is πj vi . The unit element of this ring has (i, j)th element πj vi , for i 6= j, and πi u for i = j. We let R(V, λ) = R(V, λ, 0) and R(V) = R(V, 1). Now let PA ∈ V, β an Abelian congruence on A and zi ∈ A, i < λ. Let M = i 1. Arguing on elements it is easy to see that the θδ ’s

100

10. STRUCTURE AND REPRESENTATION

are independent. Using this, and the fact that κǫ1 ≤ θ0 ∨ θǫ1 , and that κǫ2 ∨ · · · ∨ κǫn ≤ θ0 ∨ θǫ2 ∨ · · · ∨ θǫn , and the induction hypothesis we have θ0 = θ0 ∧ (κǫ1 ∨ · · · ∨ κǫn ) = θ0 ∧ (θ0 ∨ θǫ1 ) ∧ (κǫ1 ∨ · · · ∨ κǫn ) = θ0 ∧ (κǫ1 ∨ [(θ0 ∨ θǫ1 ) ∧ (θ0 ∨ · · · ∨ θǫn ) ∧ (κǫ2 ∨ · · · ∨ κǫn )]) = θ0 ∧ (κǫ1 ∨ (θ0 ∧ (κǫ2 ∨ . . . ∨ κǫn ))) = θ0 ∧ κǫ1 = 0 This contradiction shows θ0 6≥ κ. The case δ 6= 0 follows from the fact that κ ∨ θδ = κ ∨ θ0 . If follows that κ < θ. Let λ ∈ Con B be a maximal congruence which contains κ but not θ. Then λ is completely meet irreducible, i.e., B/λ is subdirectly irreducible. Now in Con B, γ/ηδ ց ηδ′ /0. Since A is subdirectly irreducible with monolith β, the interval γ/ηδ has a unique atom βδ and the interval ηδ′ /0 has a unique atom θδ . Hence λ ∧ ηδ′ = 0, for otherwise λ ≥ θδ , which implies λ ≥ θδ ∨ κ = θ, a contradiction. Thus ηδ ∨ ηδ′ = γ and λ ∧ ηδ′ = 0. If for some δ, λ ∨ ηδ ≥ γ, then [γ, γ] ≤ [ηδ ∨ ηδ′ , ηδ ∨ λ] ≤ ηδ ∨ (λ ∧ ηδ′ ) = ηδ . By Proposition 4.4 this would imply that in Con A, [γ, γ] = 0, contrary to hypothesis. Thus for each δ, λ ∨ ηδ γ. Since ηδ ∨ ηǫ = γ for δ 6= ǫ, the λ ∨ ηδ , δ < ℵ, must be pairwise distinct. Hence | Con B/λ| ≥ ℵ, proving the theorem. Theorem 10.15. Let A be an algebra in a modular variety and let |A| = m < ω. Then the following are equivalent. (1) V(A) is residually small. m+3 (2) V(A) is residually ≤ m + ℓ ! where ℓ = mm . (3) For any µ, ν ∈ Con C, where C ⊆ A, ν ≤ [µ, µ] implies ν = [µ, ν]. Proof. Trivially (2) implies (1) and Theorem 10.14 shows that (1) implies (3). So assume that (3) holds. It follows directly from Lemma 10.2 that if V (A) contained an infinite subdirectly irreducible algebra, it would have arbitrarily large finite subdirectly irreducible algebras (cf. Quackenbush [75]). Thus we only need to show that every finite subdirectly irreducible algebra in V (A) has cardinality bounded as stated in (2). By Theorem 8.1, the condition of (3) holds in every finite algebra in V (A). Let B ∈ V (A) be a finite subdirectly irreducible algebra with monolith β. If β is not Abelian then B ∈ HS(A) by Theorem 10.1 and B is bounded as in (2). Thus we assume that β is Abelian and let

3. RESIDUALLY SMALL VARIETIES

101

γ = (0 : β) be the centralizer of β. By Theorem 10.1 B/γ ∈ HS(A). If [γ, γ] 6= 0, then [γ, γ] ≥ β, and since γ is the centralizer of β, [β, γ] = 0. This however violates (3) so we conclude that [γ, γ] = 0. Thus γ is an Abelian congruence with, say, k blocks where k ≤ m = |A|. Let z1 , . . . , zk be a system of distinct Pk representatives for these blocks. Then by Corollary 9.10, M(γ) = i=1 M(γ, zi ) is a subdirectly irreducible R(V (A), k) = R(V (A), k, 0)–module. Now k+1 k2 k+3 m+3 ≤ mm ≤ mm . |R(V (A), k, 0)| ≤ mm These bounds follow from the fact that R(V (A), k) consists of k by k matrices whose (i, j)th elements lie in Hij which has cardinality at most |FV (A) (k + 1)|. Thus M(γ) is a subdirectly irreducible module over a ring with cardinality bounded in terms of m = |A| as above. Thus we have reduced our problem to the special classical case of bounding the size of subdirectly irreducible modules over a finite ring in terms of the size of the ring. (The variety of left (unitary) R–modules is generated by R as a left R–module and thus is finitely generated when R is finite. A bound on M(γ) easily gives a bound on B, see below.) At this point we could use the classical results of Rosenberg and Zelinsky [78] to obtain a bound for M(γ). Instead we will give a direct argument. Thus suppose that M is a subdirectly irreducible module over a finite ring R. Let N be the unique minimal submodule of M, and let a ∈ N, a 6= 0. Then, if c 6= 0 is in M, N ⊆ Rc. Hence for each c 6= 0 in M we can assign an r ∈ R such that rc = a. This implies that |M| ≤ |R|!. We can prove this by induction as follows. We prove that if we have Abelian groups K and L and an element a 6= 0 in L and k homomorphisms r1 , . . . , rk ∈ Hom(K, L) such that for each c 6= 0 in K there is an ri with ri c = a, then |K| ≤ (k + 1)!. We induct on k; the initial case is left to the reader. Now each nonzero element of K is assigned to some ri . Suppose that r1 has the most elements assigned to it, say c1 , . . . , ct . Then |K| ≤ 1 + kt. Now let K1 be the kernel of r1 . Since c1 − ci , i = 1, . . . , t, is in K1 , |K1 | ≥ t. Thus |K| ≤ 1 + k|K1 |. Now K1 satisfies the same hypothesis as K using r2 , . . . , rk . Thus by induction |K1 | ≤ k!, and |K| ≤ 1 + k · k! ≤ (k + 1)!, proving the claim. +3 Hence we conclude that |M(γ)| ≤ ℓ !, where ℓ = mm . Now M(γ) Q is the direct product of the γ–blocks of B, so |M(γ)| = ki=1 |M(γ, zi )|. Pk Clearly |B| = i=1 |M(γ, zi )|. From this it follows that |B| ≤ m + |M(γ)| ≤ m + ℓ !, as desired.

102

10. STRUCTURE AND REPRESENTATION

4. Chief Factors and Simple Algebras Every compactly generated (i.e., algebraic) lattice is weakly atomic; that is, if θ < ψ in Con A the there are α, β ∈ Con A with θ ≤ β ≺ α ≤ ψ (α covers β). In our paper [29] we defined ♯α/β to be the supremum of the cardinalities of the sets {y/β : y ∈ x/α} for x ∈ A, i.e., ♯α/β is the supremum of the number of β–blocks lying in a single α–block. These prime intervals α/β and their associated numbers ♯α/β were loosely construed as a general analogue of what, in group theory, are called the chief factors of a group. [There are some open problems here, It would be nice to have some canonical algebra associated with α, β with properties similar to chief factors in groups. P A candidate for such an algebra in the case α/β is Abelian is M = M(α/β, zi ), where the zi , s represent the classes of the congruence (β : α), (M(α/β, zi) is defined in Exercise 4). By Definition 9.3, M is a simple module. See Exercise 3 for additional properties of M.] We proved some theorems in [29] about these “chief factors” of finite algebras in a modular variety generated by finite algebra. These results extended similar results proved by J. B. Nation and Walter Taylor for permutable varieties. Here we improve these results. Theorem 10.16. Let A be a finite algebra in a modular variety and let B ∈ V(A). (1) If α ≻ β in Con B, then ♯α/β ≤ |A|. (2) If the length of Con B is n, then |B| ≤ |A|n . (3) If B is simple, then |B| ≤ |A|. Proof. The following facts are elementary and are left as exercises to the reader (or see Freese-McKenzie [29]): (i) If γ ≤ β ≺ α then ♯α/β is the same in A as in A/γ. (ii) If α/β ց γ/δ then ♯α/β ≥ ♯γ/δ and equality obtains if β and γ permute. To prove 1. we first observe that we may assume that B is subdirectly irreducible, β = 0, and α is the monolith. Indeed let λ be a completely meet irreducible congruence with λ ≥ β and λ α. Then λ ∨ α/λ ց α/β and so by (i) and (ii) it suffices to show that the monolith of B/λ satisfies 1. Assuming first that B is finite, let B = C/θ, where C ⊆ Am with m minimal. Let ψ be the unique cover of θ. By (i) it suffices to show that ♯ψ/θ ≤ |A|. Let η ∈ Con C be the kernel of the projection to the first coordinate, and η ′ the kernel of the projection to the other coordinates. Since η ′ θ by the minimality of m, ψ/θ ց ψ ∧ η ′ /θ ∧ η ′ ր η ∨ (ψ ∧ η ′ )/η ∨ (θ ∧ η ′ ) ⊆ 1/η.

EXERCISES

103

If α is non-Abelian then by Theorem 10.1 B ∈ HS(A) and 1. clearly holds. Hence we assume that [ψ, ψ] ≤ θ and thus by the results of Chapter 6, θ and ψ ∧ η ′ permute and the result follows from (ii). Now assume that B is infinite. As above we may assume B is subdirectly irreducible with monolith α. Since B ∈ V (A), which is locally finite, Lemma 10.2 implies that B is a subalgebra of an ultraproduct of finite algebras Bi ∈ HS(B). Lemma 10.2 also tells us that if µi is the monolith of Bi , then α is contained in the ultraproduct of the µi’s restricted to B. Since ♯µi /0 ≤ |A| for each i by the finite case. ♯µ/0 ≤ |A|, from which 1. follows. The other parts of the theorem follow easily. Exercises Qn

1. Let C ⊆ i=1 Ai be a subdirect representation of C. Let α ≻ β in Con C and let ηi be the projection congruences. Prove that there is an i such that ηi ≤ (β : α). Thus, in the situation of Theorem 10.5, if B ∈ V (A) is subdirectly irreducible, and A and B are finite, then there exists a nilpotent congruence V θ ∈ Con B such that θ = ni=1 (θ ∨ ηi ).

CHAPTER 11

Joins and Products of Modular Varieties The two main results of this chapter are easy but not obvious. The first bounds the size of the subdirectly irreducible algebras in the join of two modular varieties. It was noticed in the case of finitely generated varieties in Freese-McKenzie [29], then it turned out to be true for rings (McKenzie [64]) so it gradually became obvious. An example is given showing that result is false without the modularity assumption. The second result shows that if two varieties intersect trivially and one is solvable then they are independent. A theorem of C. Herrmann is derived as a corollary. Theorem 11.1. Let V = V0 ∨ V1 be a modular variety. If Vi is residually ≤ λi , i= 0, 1, then V is residually ≤ λ0 λ1 . Proof. This theorem is an immediate consequence of the following lemma: if V = V0 ∨ V1 is modular and B ∈ V is subdirectly irreducible, then B = C/θ where C is a subdirect product of subdirectly irreducible algebras A0 and A1 , Ai ∈ Vi . To see the lemma let B ∈ V be subdirectly irreducible and assume B 6∈ V0 ∪ V1 . Then B = C/θ where C ⊆ A0 × A1 , Ai ∈ Vi . Let ηi ∈ Con(C) be the projection kernels. Using the upper continuity of Con(C), choose θ0 and θ1 ∈ Con(C) maximal such that θi ≥ ηi and θ0 ∧ θ1 ≤ θ. The proof of the lemma will be done when we show θ0 and θ1 are completely meet irreducible. First note that (θ ∨ θ0 ) ∧ (θ ∨ θ1 ) > θ. For otherwise B ∈ V0 or V1 . Moreover, (θ ∨ θ0 ) ∧ (θ ∨ θ1 )/θ ց θ1 ∧ (θ ∨ θ0 )/θ ∧ θ1 . Now θ ∧ θ1 = θ0 ∧ θ1 since otherwise we could replace θ0 with θ0 ∨ (θ ∧ θ1 ) and violate the maximality of θ0 . Hence θ1 ∧(θ∨θ0 )/θ0 ∧θ1 is isomorphic to (θ ∨ θ0 ) ∧ (θ ∨ θ1 )/θ. Since θ is completely meet irreducible, there is a ϕ ≻ θ0 ∧ θ1 such that θ0 ∧ θ1 < α ≤ θ1 ∧ (θ ∨ θ0 ) implies ϕ ≤ α. Since θ1 ∧ (θ ∨ θ0 )/θ0 ∧ θ1 ր (θ0 ∨ θ1 ) ∧ (θ0 ∨ θ)/θ0 , θ0 ≺ θ0 ∨ ϕ. Suppose ψ ∈ Con(C) satisfies ψ ∧ (θ0 ∨ ϕ) = θ0 . Then ψ ϕ, which implies ψ ∧ θ1 ∧ (θ ∨ θ0 ) = θ0 ∧ θ1 . Now (θ ∨ θ0 ) ∧ ((ψ ∧ θ1 ) ∨ θ) = θ ∨ (ψ ∧ θ1 ∧ (θ ∨ θ0 )) = θ. 105

106

11. JOINS AND PRODUCTS OF MODULAR VARIETIES

Since θ is meet irreducible, either θ ≥ θ0 ≥ η0 , a contradiction, or ψ ∧ θ1 ≤ θ. But then ψ = θ0 by the maximality of θ0 . This proves θ0 is completely meet irreducible. Example 11.2. Polin constructed a nonmodular variety V, whose congruence lattices nevertheless did satisfy nontrivial lattice identities, solving an old problem. His variety is generated by a four element algebra A with a binary, two unary, and a nullary operation (see Polin [74], Day-Freese [23]). Now A = A0 × A1 with each Ai equivalent to the two element Boolean algebra. Hence V = V0 ∨ V1 with V = V (Ai ) and Vi is distributive, permutable, and residually ≤ 2. Nevertheless V is nonmodular and residually large. Thus modularity is necessary in Theorem 11.1. This example also shows that modularity is necessary in the result of Hagemann and Herrmann (see Exercise 8.2), that the join of two distributive varieties in a modular variety is distributive. Two varieties V0 and V1 of the same type are independent if there is a term t(x0 , x1 ) such that Vi satisfies t(x0 , x1 ) = xi , i = 0, 1. If V0 , V1 ⊆ V, we write V = V0 ⊗ V1 provided that V0 and V1 are independent and V = V0 ∨ V1 (i.e. the variety generated by V0 ∪ V1 is V). Note that if t is as above and if σi (x1 , ..., xn ), i = 0, 1, are terms for V, then τ = t(σ0 , σ1 ) is a term whose interpretation in Ai agrees with that of σi if Ai ∈ Vi , i = 0, 1. From this it follows that V0 ⊗ V1 defined above is equivalent (in the technical sense; see Taylor [80] p. 354) to V0 ⊗ V1 as defined by Taylor. The equation V = V0 ⊗ V1 has strong structural implications for V: see Grätzer-Lakser-Plonka [35] and Taylor [80], pp. 357–8. In particular, each A ∈ V can be decomposed as A = A0 × A1 with Ai ∈ Vi . Moreover Con(A) ∼ = Con(A0 ) × Con(A1 ). Any (weak) Mal’cev condition which holds for both V0 and V1 will hold for V0 ⊗ V1 . Theorem 11.3. Let V be a modular variety. Let V = V0 ∨V1 , where V1 is solvable and V0 ∩V1 contains only the one-element algebras. Then V = V0 ⊗ V1 . Proof. First we will show that if A ∈ V is a subdirect product of A0 and A1 , with Ai ∈ Vi , then A = A0 × A1 . To see this let ηi ∈ Con(A) be the projection kernel, i = 0, 1. Then η0 ∧ η1 = 0 and, since A/η0 ∨ η1 ∈ η0 ∩ η1 , η0 ∨ η1 = 1. Since Ai is solvable, [1]k ≤ η1 in Con(A) for some k. ([1]k is defined in Definition 6.1.) Hence [η0 ]k ≤ [1]k ∧ η0 ≤ η1 ∧ η0 = 0. Thus η0 is solvable and so permutes with η1 by Theorem 6.2, showing that A = A0 × A1 . Since V = V0 ∨ V1 , FV(2) is a subdirect product of FV0 (2) and FV1 (2). Thus FV(2) = FV0 (2) × FV1 (2). Let x and y be the free

11. JOINS AND PRODUCTS OF MODULAR VARIETIES

107

generators of FV(2) and let ηi be the projection kernels. Since η0 ◦ η1 = 1, x η0 t(x, y) η1 y for some t(x, y) ∈ FV(2). Consequently V0 satisfies x = t(x, y) and V1 satisfies y = t(x, y), proving the theorem. Since a distributive variety and a solvable variety can have only the one-element algebra in common, the last theorem implies that if D is a distributive variety and S is solvable variety and M = D ∨ S then M = D ⊗ S. Hence we have the following corollary, due to Herrmann [45]. Corollary 11.4. Let M = D ∨ A with M a modular variety, D a distributive variety and A an Abelian variety. Then M = D ⊗ A. We remark that for each of the congruence identities ε considered in Chapter 8, if V = V0 ∨ V1 is modular, then V satisfies ε if and only both V0 and V1 satisfy ε. This is due to the fact that “hereditary ε” is a property preserved under the formation of subdirect products of two factors, and homomorphic images.

CHAPTER 12

Strictly Simple Algebras We mean by a strictly simple algebra a finite simple algebra having more than one element, which is generated by any two of its distinct elements. (This last condition is equivalent to saying that any proper subalgebra has only one element.) A minimal variety is just an equationally complete variety, i.e., a variety possessing exactly two subvarieties, including itself. It is obvious that each locally finite minimal variety is generated by a strictly simple algebra. Surprisingly, the converse of this statement is very nearly true in the domain of modular varieties. We shall also be concerned in this section with the spectrum sets and fine spectrum functions of varieties. We define Spec(V) = {n < ω : for some A ∈ V, |A| = n} nV(κ) = (the number of isomorphism types of algebras in V of cardinality κ) Notice that Spec(V) ⊆ ω, whereas nV is a function defined on all cardinal numbers, finite and infinite. The study of strictly simple algebras in modular varieties, and the spectra and fine spectra of modular varieties generated by strictly simple algebras, produced some interesting results. We collect them here and supply proofs which are relatively easy compared to those in the literature. The following was first proved for permutable varieties in McKenzie [62] (but Smith [79], Chapter 5, came very close to proving it), and for modular varieties later by C. Herrmann. The ternary discriminator operation on a set A is operation t : A3 → A given by t(a, b, c) = a if a 6= b and c if a = b. A variety V is called a discriminator variety if there is a term t(x, y, z) for V such that the corresponding term operation is a ternary discriminator operation on each algebra in a generating set of V. A finite algebra such that the ternary discriminator operation is a term operation is called quasiprimal. Theorem 12.1. (1) Every strictly simple algebra in a modular variety generates either an Abelian or a distributive subvariety. 109

110

12. STRICTLY SIMPLE ALGEBRAS

(2) If A is strictly simple and V(A) is permutable and non-Abelian, then A is a quasiprimal algebra. Proof. Suppose first that A is strictly simple, V = V (A) is modular, and A is not affine. Obviously, A (and its subalgebras can have only one element) satisfies the congruence identity [x, y] = x · y (in fact Con A = 0, 1 and [1, 1] = 1). Thus A and its subalgebras are neutral. Since A is finite, FV (A) (3) is a finite subdirectly power of A. Now, by Exercise 8.2, FV (A) (3) is neutral, which implies its congruence lattice is distributive by Exercise 8.1. Thus, by Jónsson’s Theorem 2.1, V (A) is distributive. For statement (2), suppose that A is strictly simple and non-Abelian and V (A) is permutable. Then by (1) V (A) is arithmetic (distributive and permutable), and by Jónsson’s theorem every subdirectly irreducible algebra in the variety is isomorphic to A, hence hereditarily simple. So (2) follows from Pixley’s characterization of quasiprimal algebras [72] (or see Burris-Sankappanavar [10] p.173). Corollary 12.2. Let F be a finite, simple, non-Abelian algebra in a modular variety and F′ = (F, c)c∈F its inessential expansion by constants. Then we have (1) V(F′ ) is distributive. (2) If V(F) is permutable, then the ternary discriminator operation is a polynomial operation of F. The following amazing result of R. Quackenbush [76], (but he discovered it in 1976) stood for four years with a difficult proof until an easy one was found in McKenzie [63]. Modularity is not implicitly assumed. The proofs lie outside commutator theory. Theorem 12.3. The following are equivalent for any finite algebra A, where |A| = n > 1. (1) A is strictly simple and V(A) is permutable. (2) Spec(V(A)) = {nk : k < ω}. Quackenbush has used his theorem in [77] to give a relatively easy proof of I. Rosenberg’s classification of pre-complete clones of operations on a finite set. If A is strictly simple and V (A) = V is distributive, then V is minimal by Jónsson’s Theorem. If V is also permutable, then Spec(V) is given by Theorem 12.3(ii), and nV(m) = 1 for finite m in the spectrum, since A is quasiprimal. On the other hand, if V is distributive but not permutable, then most of the obvious questions concerning Spec(V) and the finite values of nV are completely open. [S. Burris proved


111

in [7] that for infinite λ, any distributive variety containing a simple algebra of cardinality at most λ, has nV(λ) ≥ 2( λ) with equality, of course, if V has at most λ basic operations.] On the Abelian side of Theorem 12.1, there are some interesting facts which we now proceed to derive under the rubric of theory developed in Chapter 9. It is easily seen, first of all, that any finite simple affine algebra is strictly simple, the condition on subalgebras being redundant. Let us recall the concept of the linearization, A∇ , of an Abelian algebra A, from Proposition 9.18. The history and contributors to the following theorem will be discussed after we prove it. Theorem 12.4. Let Q be a finite, simple, Abelian algebra of n elements and let V = V (Q). Then n is a prime power. Furthermore (1) If Q has an idempotent element, then (i) Every finite algebra in V is (isomorphic to) a power of Q and every infinite algebra in V is a Boolean power of Q. Thus V is minimal. (ii) All algebras in V of size λ are isomorphic, for each λ. (2) If Q has no idempotent element, then (i) Every finite algebra in V is a power of Q or of Q∇ and every algebra in V is a Boolean power of Q or of Q∇ . V(Q∇ ) is the unique nontrivial proper subvariety of V. (ii) nV(λ) = 2 if λ = nk (k < ω) and is 0 otherwise. Proof. First we define the concept of isotopy. If A, B and C are algebras in a variety, we say A is isotopic to B via C provided C × A is isomorphic to C × B via an isomorphism which commutes with the first projection (i.e. (c, a) 7→ (c, a) for some b ∈ B). Notice that in a modular variety this is equivalent to (∗)

there is a β ∈ Con(C × A) with (C × A)/β ∼ =B and β a complement of η0 .

(Here we are using Gumm’s result that every congruence of a direct product permutes with the factor congruences, see Exercise 5.4). Notice also that if A is isotopic to B via C and C has an idempotent element, then A ∼ = B. Now Q∇ = (Q×Q)/∆1,1 and since ∆1,1 and η0 are complements we have that Q and Q∇ are isotopic via Q. In particular Q×Q∇ ∼ = Q×Q, ∼ and if Q has an idempotent Q = Qnabla . Now suppose B ∈ V (Q) is finite and subdirectly irreducible. Since Q has no proper subalgebras and generates a permutable variety, its finitely generated free algebras are direct powers of Q. Hence there is

112


a k with Qk → B and we prove by induction on k that B is either Q or Q∇ . Since Q is simple, k = 1 is easy. So assume k > 1. Then Qk ∼ = Q×Qk−1 . Let θ ∈ Con(Q∇ ×Qk−1 ) be the kernel of the map onto B. Since the coatoms of ConQk meet to 0, ConQk ∼ = ConQ∇ × Qk−1 is a complemented modular lattice and since θ is meet irreducible, this implies it is also a coatom. Let η0′ be the kernel of Q∇ × Qk−1 → Qk−1 and define γ = (η0 ∧θ)∨η0′ . By the minimality of k, θ 6≥ η0′ (and θ 6= η0 ) and so γ is a coatom above η0′ . By induction C = Q∇ ×Qk−1 /γ is either Q or Q∇ . Also each pair from η0 , θ, and γ is complementary in the interval 1/η0 ∧ θ. By (*) we see that B is isotopic to C via Q∇ . But Q∇ has an idempotent. Hence B ∼ = C, proving that Q and Q∇ are the only subdirectly irreducible algebras in V (Q). If A ∈ V (Q) is finite, then it is a finite subdirect product of Q and Q∇ . The minimality of Q and Q∇ and permutability imply that A ∈ P{Q, Q∇ }. Since Q∇ × Q ∼ = Q × Q. A is a direct power of Q or of Q∇ . Let R = R(V (Q)) and M0 = M(1Q , 0) = M(Q, 0) where 0 is a fixed but arbitrary element of Q. Since Con Q = Con M0 by Proposition 9.19(i), M0 is simple. It is a faithful R-module because Q generates V (Q). Thus R is a finite simple ring, and hence isomorphic to the ring of m by m matrices over a finite field GF(pr ). Hence n = |Q| = |M0 | = prm . By Jacobson [52], Theorem 4.4, p.208, every R-module is isomor(λ) phic to a direct sum M0 for some cardinal λ. If B ∈ V (Q) has an idempotent element e, then M = M(B, e) ∼ = (λ) (λ) (e) ∼ M0 and B = A(M, ϕ ) = A(M0 , 0) by Theorem 9.16, so B is determined up to isomorphism by its cardinality. Notice that if Q has an idempotent element, then FV (Q) (1) does and hence every algebra in V (Q) does. This proves (1), since there are Boolean powers of every infinite cardinality. To complete the proof we will show that if B ∈ V (Q) has infinite cardinality λ and no idempotent element, then B ∼ = A(M0 (λ) , 0) × Q. Indeed we have B ∼ = A(M0 (λ) , ψ) and we can assume the isomorphism is equality. The rang of ψ is a finite submodule of M0 (λ) , hence contained in a finite sum of the factors. So we can write B = A(M0 (λ) × M(k) , ψ), with k < ω and the range of ψ contained in the second factor. Since the projection kernels are congruences of B, this implies B ∼ = A(M0 (λ) , 0) × A(M(k) , ψ). The second factor is finite without idempotent hence isomorphic to Qk by the above. Since Qk ∼ = C × Q where C has an idempotent. = Qk−1 × Q, we obtain B ∼ Hence C ∼ = A(M0 (λ) , 0), completing the proof.


113

Steven Givant in [31, 32] and E. A. Palyutin in [70, 71] described in detail all varieties of algebras of countable type which are categorical in some infinite power. The varieties V (Q∇ ) with Q strictly simple Abelian are precisely the modular varieties in Givant’s classification. (The nonmodular ones can be constructed in a canonical way from permutational representations of finite groups.) Note that V (Q) is essentially of finite type, whatever its actual type, since every term is equal in Q to one obtained by composition from binary terms and d, by Theorem 9.16. The conclusions in Theorem 12.4 which concern the finite algebras in V (Q) were proved in part by Smith [79], Chapter 5, and in full by Clark and Krauss [12], [13] and Quackenbush [76]. Categoricity of V (Q∇ ) in all powers was then proved by Clark-Krauss [14]. The fact that nV(λ) = 2 for all infinite λ when Q is not isomorphic to Q∇ follows from Corollary 2.8 and Lemma 2.9 of Clark-Krauss [14]. Our proof of Theorem 12.4 has not appeared before.

CHAPTER 13

Mal’cev Conditions for Lattice Equations Theorems 2.1(2) and 2.2 give Jonsson’s and Day’s conditions on a variety equivalent to the variety having distributive or modular congruences. Both of these conditions assert the existence of terms in a fixed number of variables (3 for distributivity, 4 for modularity) which satisfy certain equations. Conditions of this form are known as Mal’cev conditions. In the light of Jonsson’s and Day’s results, it would be natural to conjecture that every lattice identity has such a Mal’cev condition. A. Pixley and R. Wille were able to prove that each lattice has a it weak Mal’cev condition. A it weak Mal’cev condition is the conjunction of Mal’cev conditions Cn , n ∈ ω, where Cn implies Cm if n ≥ m. See Taylor [80] for a precise discussion of these concepts. Several questions remain open. it Does every lattice identity correspond to a Mal’cev condition? Are there any nontrivial identities, other then distributivity and modularity, which have Mal’cev conditions? Certain identities were shown to have Mal’cev conditions, for example, Gedeonova [30] and Mederly [66], but Day [20], following Nation, shows that these identities were in fact equivalent to modularity for the congruence lattice of varieties of varieties algebras. In this section we shall answer the second question above. We use the commutator to sketch a proof that are infinitely many lattice identities each having a Mal’cev condition. Moreover, these identities are inequivalent in the strong since that for any two of them there is a modular variety whose congruence lattices satisfy one of these identities but not the other. In this chapter we assume the reader has some familiarity with Mal’cev conditions and the theory of modular lattices. A subset {ai : i = 1, . . . , n} ∪ {cij : 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n, i 6= j} of a modular lattice is called a (von Neumann) n–frame provided.

ai ∧

_

aj =

j6=i

n ^

ak

k=1

(cij ∨ cjk ) ∧ (ai ∨ ak ) = cik cij = cji 115

116

13. MAL’CEV CONDITIONS FOR LATTICE EQUATIONS

for distinct i, j and k, and ai , aj , cij generates a copy of M3 for i 6= j. These n–frames play an important role in the theory of modular lattices. They are projective, i.e.,the free modular lattice generated by an n–frame is a projective lattice. This fact was first proved by Huhn [48]; see also Freese [25]. Moreover, if L is a modular lattice containing an n–frame, n ≥ 4, we let R = {x ∈ L : x∨a2 = a1 ∨a2 , x∧a2 = a1 ∧a2 } and define an addition x ⊕ y on R by x ⊕ y = [((x ∨ c13 ) ∧ (a2 ∨ a3 )) ∨ ((y ∨ a3 ) ∧ (a2 ∨ c13 ))] ∧ (a1 ∨ a2 ) Multiplication on R is defined by a similar formula. The details of these formulae are not important for our arguments here. Under these operations R is a ring with a1 as its zero and c12 as its unit. The next lemma is the key to our result. Lemma 13.1. If θ1 , . . . , θn , θ12 , θ13 , . . . , θn−1,n is an n–frame in Con A in V a modular W variety, then any two congruences in the interval between θi and θi permute. W W W Proof. By additivity [ θi , θi ] = i,j [θi , θj ]. If i 6= j, then V [θi , θj ]V≤ θi ∧ θj = V θk . SinceWθi isWpart ofVan M3 with least element θk , [θi , θj ] ≤ θk . Thus [ θi , θi ] ≤ θi and the lemma now follows easily from Theorem 6.2. Let x = (x1 , . . . , xn , x12 , . . . , xn,n−1 ) be a vector of lattice variables. The fact that n–frames are projective implies that there are lattice terms ai (x), cij (x), in these variables such that any interpretation of these terms into a modular lattice yields a (possibly degenerate) n– frame and if the variables xi and xij are substituted into a frame ai , cij the value of ai (x) is ai and that of cij (x) is cij . Let εp be the lattice equation which expresses the fact that the ring associated with the frame {ai (x), cij (x)} satisfies p · 1 = 0, where p is a prime. Here p · 1 stands for the sum of p copies of 1. By the above formula for addition, this can be expressed as a lattice equation. If V is the variety of all vector spaces over a field F, then using elementary linear algebra one can show that the ring associated with any n–frame in a congruence lattice (= subspace lattice) in V has the same characteristic as that of F. Thus if p and q are distinct primes there is a modular variety (the variety of vector spaces over the field with p elements) which satisfies εp but fails εq . Hence the εp ’s are pairwise inequivalent even for congruences on varieties of algebras. Theorem 13.2. For each prime p, the condition that the congruence lattice of a variety of algebras are modular and satisfy εp is definable by a Mal’cev condition.


117

Proof. In order to understand the proof we need to review the procedure for obtaining the weak Mal’cev condition associated with a lattice inequality. This is best done by way of example. We will illustrate this with the distributive law, the simplest nontrivial lattice equation. The distributive law is equivalent to the following inequality. (1)

x ∧ (y ∨ z) ≤ (x ∧ y) ∨ (x ∧ z)

Recall that a weak Mal’cev condition consists of the conjunction of stronger Mal’cev conditions Cn , n < ω. To illustrate the procedure for obtaining Cn , let V be a distributive variety and let S be a set (whose size will be determinate later) of letters containing a and b, and let F = FV(S) be the free V algebra generated by S. In the first half of the procedure we associate congruences of F with the variables of (1) in such a way that ha, bi is in the left side of (1). Since we want ha, bi ∈ x ∧ (y ∨ z), we must have ha, bi ∈ x, and ha, bi ∈ y ∨ z. In order to insure that the latter occurs we include in S letters a1 , . . . , an such that ha, a1 i ∈ y, hai , ai+1 i ∈ y, if i is even hai , ai+1 i ∈ z, if i is odd, and han , bi is in y if n is even, in z if n is odd. (The n here is the same as the subscript of Cn .) Thus in order to insure that ha, bi is in the left side of (1) we take S = a, b, a1 , . . . , an , and we take the following substitutions for x, y and z.

(2)

x 7→ Cg (a, b) _ y 7→ Cg (ai , ai+1 ) i even

z 7→

_

Cg (ai , ai+1 )

i odd

Here we take a0 = a and an+1 = b. This is the first half of the procedure for obtaining Cn . The procedure for an arbitrary lattice inequality is similar. In the general step if we have c, d ∈ S with hc, di ∈ w, where w is a subterm of the left side of the inequality, then if w is a meet, say w = w1 ∧w2 , then we put hc, di in both w1 and w2 . If w = w1 ∨ w2 then we add c1 , . . . , cn to S and put hci , ci+1 i into w1 or w2 , depending on whether i is even or odd. The procedure stops when we reach the lattice generators. At this point, associated with each lattice generator is a list of pairs of elements of S. We then associate with this generator the congruence on FV(S) generated by this list of pairs. It is easy to see that, under this interpretation, ha, bi is in the left side of the inequality.

118


Now for the second half of the procedure. Let x, y and z denote the value of these letters under the substitution (2), i.e., let x denote CgF (a, b), etc. Thus ha, bi ∈ x∧(y∨z) and since we are assuming that V satisfies (1), we must have ha, bi ∈ (x∧y)∨(x∧z). Hence there must be elements t0 (a, a1 , . . . , an , b), . . . , tm (a, a1 , . . . , an , b) of FV(S) such that t0 = a, tm = b, hti , ti+1 i ∈ x ∧ y, if i is even, hti , ti+1 i ∈ x ∧ z if i is odd. Since x = Cg (a, b), for each i we have ti (a, a1 , . . . , an , a) x ti (a, a1 , . . . , an , b) x ti+1 (a, a1 , . . . , an , b) x ti+1 (a, a1 , . . . , an , a). Since Cg (a, b) is the trivial relation on the subalgebra of F generated by {a, a1 , . . . , an }, we have (3)

ti (a, a1 , . . . , an , a) = ti+1 (a, a1 , . . . , an , a)

for i = 0, . . . , m − 1. Similarly, assuming n is odd, we obtain for i even, (4)

ti (a, a, a2 , a2 , a4 , a4 , . . . , b) = ti+1 (a, a, a2 , a2 , a4 , a4 , . . . , b)

and for i odd (5)

ti (a, a1 , a1 , a3 , a3 , . . . , b, b) = ti+1 (a, a1 , a1 , a3 , a3 , . . . , b, b)

Now the Mal’cev condition Cn is the following assertion for a variety V: for some m < ω there are V-terms t0 (a, a1 , . . . , an , b),. . . , tm (a, a1 , . . . , an , b) such that t0 = a, tm = b and V satisfies (3), (4), and (5). The above arguments show that if V is a distributive variety then V satisfies Cn for all n. It is not difficult to prove the converse: if V satisfies Cn for all n, then V is distributive. Jonsson’s Mal’cev condition is C1 . His theorem (Theorem 2.1) is the much stronger result that V is distributive if and only if it satisfies C1 . The same idea applies in the general case. Namely if we have a lattice inequality (6)

v(x1 , . . . , xk ) ≤ u(x1 , . . . , xk )

then following the first half of the procedure detailed above we obtain a set S, containing a and b, and a map, which we denote by τ , from each lattice variable xi into a congruence on FV(S) generated by a partition on S, such that ha, bi is in the left side of (6). If V satisfies (6) then ha, bi is in the right side. Just as in the distributive case this implies that there are certain identities involving the variables S. Thus V satisfies a lattice inequality, such as (6), if and only if V satisfies Cn for all n. An inequality such as (6) has a Mal’cev condition if there is a fixed n0 such that V satisfies (6) if and only if it satisfies Cn0 . Since if V satisfies (6) it satisfies all Cn , to show that (6) has a Mal’cev condition it suffices to show that there is a fixed n0 such that if V fails (6) then V fails Cn0 .


119

Now let V be a variety failing the conjunction of modularity and εp . If V is nonmodular then the C2 of Day’s Mal’cev condition fails in V. Thus we may assume that V is modular and fails εp . We claim that the C1 associated with εp fails in V. Since εp fails there is an algebra A in V and congruences θi , θij which fail εp . By the remarks above, ai (θ), cij (θ) is a frame in Con(A) and if we substitute the variables of εp into this frame, instead of into the θi , θij , the value of the two sides of εp remain the same. Thus, by changing notation, we may assume there is a substitution, xi 7→ θi , xij 7→ θij , of the variables into a frame {θi , θij } of Con(A) such that εp fails. Hence there are elements a, b ∈ A with ha, bi in the left side of εp but not in the right. Now by Lemma 13.1 all of the subterms of the terms of ε permute. Now we build a subset T ⊆ Ain a manner analogous to the procedure for forming S in the weak Mal’cev condition C1 for εp described above. We start with a, b ∈ T . Let v be the left side of εp . Then ha, bi ∈ v. Now suppose that c, d ∈ T , and hc, di ∈ w = w1 ∨ w2 , where w is a subterm of v. Since w = w1 ◦ w2 , there exists e ∈ A such that c w1 e w2 d. We add e to T . Since T is formed in a manner similar to S, there is a surjection σ : S → T . Moreover if y is one of the lattice variables of v and if hc, di, (c, d ∈ S) is in the congruence of FV(S) associated with y (see the description of C1 above) then hσ(c), σ(d)i is in the congruence on A associated with y (θi if y = xi , θij if y = xij ). That is, the image under σ of the partition on S associated with y lies in the congruence on A associated with y. If V satisfied C1 it would follow from the construction of C1 that ha, bi would be in the right side of εp , a contradiction. Thus C1 fails in V.

The lattice equations satisfied by the lattice of submodules (= congruence lattice) of a variety of modules were extensively studied in Hutchinson-Czedli [51]. Using these ideas we can prove that for each lattice equation ε there is another equation ε′ , which is equivalent to ε for varieties of modules, and such that the conjunction of ε′ and modularity is definable by a Mal’cev condition. A recent paper of Day and Kiss defines a “canonical” n–frame in FV(n + 1) when V is a modular variety. They show that the ring associated with this frame equals R(V). Thus the equations εp are significant for V in that V satisfies εp if and only if r · 1 = 0 in R(V), for any p (not necessarily a prime). Thus our Mal’cev condition are closely connected to the characteristic of R(V). Some of these connections are developed in the exercises.

120


Exercises 1. (Jónsson, unpublished) Let V be a modular variety, A ∈ V and αi , γij ∈ Con(A) be a n–frame, n ≥ 3, such that α1 ∧ α2 = 0. Let β, δ be in the ring associated with this frame (i.e., β ∨α2 = α1 ∨ α2 and β ∧ α2 = α1 ∧ α2 and the same for δ) and define an ˙ and × on the ring as follows: addition and multiplication + ˙ = {hx, yi ∈ A2 : ∃ z, t x β z α2 y, x α2 t δ y, z α1 T } β +δ β × δ = {hx, yi ∈ A2 : ∃ z, t x β z α2 y, x α1 t δ y, z γ12 t}. Prove that the addition given here is the same as the addition defined just above Lemma 13.1. (This exercise can be used to construct a fairly simple Mal’cev condition for εp .) 2. As mentioned at the end of the chapter, all the congruence lattice in V satisfy εn if and only if R(V) (and so also R(V, λ, κ)) satisfies n · 1 = 0. Prove this for n = 3. You may use that the satisfaction of εn is equivalent to the fact that the ring of every frame satisfies n · 1 = 0.

CHAPTER 14

A Finite Basis Result In this chapter we presents a generalization of Michael VaughanLee’s finite basis [81]. The result is that a finite nilpotent algebra of finite type which is the direct product of algebras of prime power orders has a finite basis for its identities. Vaughan-Lee proved this under the additional assumption that the algebra had an equationally defined constant. Lemmas 7.3 through Corollary 7.7 prove some elementary facts about nilpotent algebras. The reader may want to quickly review them before proceeding. Recall from Chapter 6 that (1, 1]0 = 1 and that (1, 1]k+1 = [1, (1, 1]k ]. As in Chapter 7, we write (1]k for (1, 1]k . A is nilpotent if (1]k = 0 for some k. For a (modular) variety V we let Vn be the subvariety consisting of all algebras in V satisfying (1]n = 0. We need to show that Vn is finitely based relative to V. The next theorems prove this provided FV(2) is finite. We are interested in the case V = V (A), A finite, where this condition is of course true. Theorem 14.1. a ζA b if and only if (1) f (d(r1 (a, b), r1 (b, b), c1 ), . . . , d(rn (a, b), rn (b, b), cn )) = d(f (r1 (a, b), . . . , rn (a, b)), f (r1 (b, b), . . . , rn (b, b)), f (c)) and (2)

d(r(a, b), r(b, b), r(b, b)) = r(a, b)

for all basic operations f , all c = hc1 , . . . , cn i ∈ An , and all binary term operations r and ri . Proof. If a ζ b then (1) and (2) hold by Proposition 5.7. Now suppose that (1) and (2) hold. Then (1) holds whenever f is a term operation. (1) and (2) imply (3)

d(d(r(a, b), r(b, b), c), c, e) = d(r(a, b), r(b, b), e) 121

122

14. A FINITE BASIS RESULT

for all c, e ∈ A, and r a binary term operation. In fact, d(d(r(a, b), r(b, b), c, e) = d(d(r(a, b), r(b, b), c), d(r(b, b), r(b, b), c), d(r(b, b), r(b, b), e) = d(d(r(a, b), r(b, b), r(b, b)), r(b, b), e) = d(r(a, b), r(b, b), e). Now define a relation θ on A by (4)

u θ v ↔ u = d(r(a, b), r(b, b), v)

for some binary term operation r. Clearly v θ v (take r(x, y) = y). Suppose u θ v so that u = d(r(a, b), r(b, b), v). Let s(a, b) = d(r(b, b), r(a, b), r(b, b)). Note that s(b, b) = r(b, b). Now using (1) backwards and then (2), d(s(a, b), s(b, b), u) = d(d(r(b, b), r(a, b), r(b, b)), d(r(b, b), r(b, b), r(b, b)), d(r(a, b), r(b, b), v)) = d(d(r(b, b), r(b, b), r(a, b)), d(r(a, b), r(b, b), r(b, b)), d(r(b, b), r(b, b), v)) = d(r(a, b), r(a, b), v) = v. Thus v θ u. Suppose u θ v θ w. Then u = d(r(a, b), r(b, b), v) and v = d(s(a, b), s(b, b), w). Let t(a, b) = d(r(a, b), r(b, b), s(a, b)). Note t(b, b) = s(b, b) and d(t(a, b), t(b, b), w) = d(d(r(a, b), r(b, b), s(a, b)), d(r(b, b), r(b, b), s(b, b)), d(r(b, b), r(b, b), w)) = d(d(r(a, b), r(b, b), r(b, b)), r(b, b), d(s(a, b), s(b, b), w)) = d(r(a, b), r(b, b), v) = u. If ui θ vi , i = 1, . . . , n and f is an n-ary basic operation then (1) implies f (u1 , . . . , un ) θ f (v1 , . . . , vn ). Thus θ is a congruence. Since (2) implies d(a, b, b) = a (take r(x, y) = x), a θ b. Hence, Cg (a, b) ≤ θ. But if u θ v then u = d(r(a, b), r(b, b), v) Cg (a, b) d(r(b, b), r(b, b), v) = v. Thus θ = Cg (a, b).


123

Now if hui , vi i ∈ Cg (a, b), then ui = d(ri(a, b), ri (b, b), vi ). Hence, if f is an n–ary term operation and c = hc1 , . . . , cn i ∈ An , then using (3) f(d(u1 , v1 , c1 ), . . . , d(un , vn , cn )) = f (d(d(r1(a, b), r1 (b, b), v1 ), v1 , c1 ), . . . , d(d(rn (a, b), rn (b, b), vn ), vn , cn )) = f (d(r1(a, b), r1 (b, b), c1 ), . . . , d(rn (a, b), rn (b, b), cn )) = d(f (r1(a, b), . . . , rn (a, b)), f (r1 (b, b), . . . , rn (b, b)), f (c)). Now using (3) again with r(a, b) = f (r1 (a, b), . . . , rn (a, b)) d(f (u1 , . . . , un ), f (v1 , . . . , vn ), f (c1 , . . . , cn )) = d(f (d(r1(a, b), r1 (b, b), v1 ), . . . , d(rn (a, b), rn (b, b), vn )), f (v), f (c)) = d(d(f (r1(a, b), . . . , rn (a, b)), f (r1(b, b), . . . , rn (b, b)), f (v)), f (v), f (c)) = d(f (r1(a, b), . . . , rn (a, b)), f (r1 (b, b), . . . , rn (b, b)), f (c)) Hence, f (d(u1 , v1 , c1 ), . . . , d(un , vn , cn ) = d(f (u), f (v), f (c)) for all c and all (u, v) ∈ Cg (a, b). Thus, by Proposition 5.7, [Cg (a, b), 1] = 0, and a ζA b, as claimed. As above let V be a modular variety and Vn = {A ∈ V : (1]n = 0 in A}. Define sets En of equations as follows. Let E0 = {x ≈ y} and let En+1 be the set of all equations of the form f (d(r1(s, t), r1 (t, t), z1 ), . . . , d(rk (s, t), rk (t, t), zk )) ≈ d(f (r1 (s, t), . . . , rk (s, t)), f (r1(t, t), . . . , rk (t, t)), f (z)) union the set of all equations of the form d(r(s, t), r(t, t), r(t, t)) ≈ r(s, t) where f is a basic operation, r and ri are binary terms, and s ≈ t ∈ En , and the zi are variables. Theorem 14.2. Let A ∈ V. Then A satisfies En if and only if A ∈ Vn . Proof. Suppose that A ∈ V. Then A ∈ Vn+1 if and only if A/ζ ∈ Vn . By induction this holds if and only if A/ζ satisfies En . This holds if and only if for all evaluations a and b of s ≈ t in En , a ζ b. By the last theorem, this holds if and only if A satisfies En+1 . When FV(2) is finite, then there is a finite set S of binary terms [namely a set of representative terms for the elements of FV(2)] such that any binary term r(x, y) for V is equivalent to a term in S, i.e., r(x, y) ≈ s(x, y) holds in V for some s(x, y) in S. In this case, En can

124


be defined using only the binary terms of S, and so can be taken to be finite. Thus we have the following corollary. Corollary 14.3. In a modular variety V of finite type, if FV(2) is finite, then there is a finite set of laws which, together with the identities of V, define Vn . Lemma 14.4. Let A ∈ V and let 0 be W arbitrary in A and S ⊆ A with s ζA 0 for all s ∈ S. Suppose ha, 0i ∈ S Cg (s, 0). Then a=

m X

rk (sk , 0)

k=1

for some m ∈ ω, sk ∈ S and rk (x, z) binary idempotent terms for V. W Proof. Let θ = S Cg (s, 0). Then θ ≤ ζ and hence (0 : θ) = 1. By Theorem 9.9 (with β = θ and γ = 1) the interval θ/0 of Con A is isomorphic to the lattice of submodules of the R(V, 1)–module M(θ, 0). Let R = R(V, 1) = R(V). By Exercise 5 of Chapter 9 the image of Cg W (s, 0) under P this isomorphism is the submodule Rs. Thus M(θ, 0) = Rs = s∈S s∈S Rs. Since the elements of R = R(V) can be represented by binary idempotent terms the result follows. By Theorem 6.2 a nilpotent variety is congruence permutable. Hence we assume that A ∈ U where U is a permutable variety with Mal’cev term d(x, y, z). Consider the free U algebra F generated by X ∪ z. Define u + v = d(u, z, v), u, v ∈ F. For x ∈ X let δx ∈ End(F) be such that xδx = z, yδx = y, y ∈ X − x, zδx = z. An element w = w(x1 , . . . , xn , z) of F is a commutator if there is a set x1 , . . . , xn ⊆ X such that w is in the subalgebra generated by this set and z and wδ = z, i = 1, . . . , n. A term corresponding to a commutator is a called a commutator word. Lemma 14.5. (Higman’s Lemma) Assume as above that F is the free algebra for U on X ∪ z and in addition that U is nilpotent. If u, v ∈ F then there is a finite set C of commutators such that (1) the identity u ≈ v, together with the identities of U, implies the law w(x, z) ≈ z for all w ∈ C, (2) hu, vi is contained in the congruence generated by {hw(x, z), zi : w ∈ C}. Proof. For w ∈ F define wδx∗ = d(w, wδx, z). If S ⊆ X, δS is the endomorphism of F with xδS = z, if x ∈ S, and fixing the other generators. Assume that X is linearly ordered. If S ⊆ X is finite, δS∗ is the composition of the δS ∗ ’s, x ∈ S in the order of X.


125

Define C = {d(u, v, z)δK δL∗ : K ∩ L = ∅, K ∪ L = X, L finite} It is not hard to see and is in fact shown below that C is finite. If S, T ⊆ X then, δS δT = δT δS , δS δT∗ = δT∗ δS , and, if S ∩ T 6= ∅, then wδT∗ δS = z. Now if K ∩ L = ∅ and L is finite then d(u, v, z)δK δL∗ is in the subalgebra generated by L ∪ z and if x ∈ L, d(u, v, z)δK δL∗ δX = z by the above. Thus C consists of commutators. Clearly the law u ≈ v implies the law d(u, v, z) ≈ z, and hence the law d(u, v, z)δK δL∗ ≈ z. Let c = d(u, v, z), and suppose that c lies in the subalgebra generated by S = {x1 , . . . , xn , z}. Then cδL∗ = z unless L ⊆ S, and ∗ ∗ ∗ cδK δW L = cδK1 δL if K∩S = K1 ∩S. Hence C = {cδK δL : K∪L = S}. Let θ = w∈C Cg (w, z). We claim that (c, z) ∈ θ. We show by induction on r that (cδK δL∗ , z) ∈ θ when K ∩ L = ∅, and K ∪ L = {x1 , . . . , xn−r }. The case r = 0 is true by the definition of θ, and r = n is the claim. Suppose the result is true for r. Let K ∩ L = {x1 , . . . , xn−r−1}, K ∪ L = {x1 , . . . , xn−r−1 }, K ∩ L = ∅. Let M = K ∪ {xn−r }. By induc∗ tion, (cδM δL∗ , z) and (cδK δN , z) are in θ. Now cδM δL∗ = cδK δL∗ δxn−r and ∗ cδK δN = cδK δL∗ δx∗n−r = d(cδK δL∗ , cδK δL∗ δxn−r , z). Hence both of these elements are θ-related to z. So z θ d(cδK δL∗ , cδK δL∗ δxn−r , z) θ d(cδK δL∗ , cδM δL∗ , z) θ d(cδK δL∗ , z, z) = cδK δL∗ proving the claim. Now since we are in a nilpotent variety, we can use Lemma 7.6 to see that (u, v) ∈ θ, proving the lemma. Lemma 14.6. Let U be a permutable variety and w(x1 , . . . , xk , z) ∈ FUn (X ∪ z) = F. Then w(x, z) = w(z, . . . , z) + c1 + · · · + cm where each ci is a commutator (for U) and the sum is associated left to right. Proof. Induct on n. The result is clear for n = 0. So we assume that (1]n+1 = 0 but (1] 6= 0 in Con F, and that the result is true for F/(1]n . Hence by Corollary 7.4. w(x, z) = w(z, . . . , z) + c1 + · · · + cm + e(x, z) where the ci ’s are commutators for U and e(1]n z. Setting each xi to z we see that w(z, . . . , z) = w(z, . . . , z) + e(z, . . . , z). Thus e(z, . . . , z) = z.

126


Suppose that e lies in the subalgebra generated by {x1 , . . . , xr , z} and define X u(x, z) = (−1)|S| eδS . S⊆{x1 ,...,xr }

Now a congruence α is said to be fully invariant if αδ ⊆ α for all endomorphisms δ. By Proposition 4.4(1) the commutator of two fully invariant congruences is again fully invariant. From this it follows that (1]n is fully invariant. Thus since e (1]n z, eδS (1]n z for each S. Thus eδS ζ z and hence the order of the sum above is irrelevant. Clearly u(x, z) is a commutator (one needs e(z) = z for the case r = 0). Now X e=u− (−1)|S| eδS ∅6=S⊆{x1 ,...,xr }

By induction on r, each eδS , S 6= ∅, is a sum of commutators which lie in z/ζ. Hence e = e1 + · · ·+ et , with ei a commutator and ei ζ z. Hence w(x, z) = (w(z, . . . , z) + c1 + · · · + cm ) + (e1 + · · · + et ). But since ei ζ z, w(x, z) = w(z, . . . , z) + c1 + · · · + cm + e1 + · · · + et , as desired. Let U be a permutable variety and let A ∈ U be a nilpotent algebra. Let 0 ∈ A be fixed but arbitrary. For a ∈ A, we let ρa : A → A be defined by xρa = x + a, where + is with respect to 0. By Corollary 7.4, ρa is a permutation of A. Let R(A) be the subgroup of the full symmetric group, Sym(A), generated by {ρa : a ∈ A}. Lemma 14.7. If A is a finite nilpotent algebra then the order of ρa divides |A|. Proof. Induct on the nilpotency class of A. The initial case is trivial. Let c ∈ A, and let n = |A/ζ|, m = |0/ζ|. Then |A| = nm by Corollary 7.5. By the inductive hypothesis, cρna ζ c. Hence, cρna = c+d, for some d ∈ 0/ζ. Since d ∈ 0/ζ, (b + d)ρa = (b + d) + a = (b + a) + d = n bρa + d. Thus cρ2n a = (c + d)ρa = c + d + d. Repeating this argument we obtain cρnm a = c + md = c, proving the lemma. Lemma 14.8. If A is a finite nilpotent algebra then R(A) is a solvable group and if A has prime power order then so does R(A). Proof. We induct on the class of A. The lemma is clear for the trivial algebra. As was proved in the last lemma, if c ∈ 0/ζ then (x + c)ρa = xρa + c. Hence for any ρ ∈ R(A), (x + c)ρ = xρ + c. Thus if x′ ζ x, then by Corollary 7.4 x′ = x + c for some c ∈ 0/ζ, and x′ ρ = xρ + c ζ xρ. It follows that there is a natural homomorphism from R(A) onto R(A/ζ) which maps ρa to ρa/ζ . If ρ is in the kernel K of this homomorphism then for all x there is a c ∈ 0/ζ such that


127

xρ = x + c. Hence if ρ1 and ρ2 are in K and xρi = x + ci , then xρ1 ρ2 = x + c1 + c2 = x + c2 + c1 = xρ2 ρ1 , i.e., K is an Abelian normal subgroup. If ρ ∈ K then the order of ρ divides |0/ζ| since if xρ = x + c then xρk = x + kc. By induction R(A/ζ) is solvable and so R(A) is solvable. If A has prime power order then by induction R(A/ζ) has prime power order and so does K. Hence R(A) has prime power order and so is nilpotent. Theorem 14.9. Let V be a modular variety of finite type. If A ∈ V is finite of prime power order and nilpotent then A is finitely based. In addition there is an integer M such that if w(x, z) is a commutator in more then M variables then A satisfies w(x, z) ≈ z. Proof. By Theorem 2.1(1) there is a finitely based permutable variety U containing A. We let d(x, y, z) be a Mal’cev term for U will denote a finitely based variety containing A. As the proof proceeds we will add identities to the axioms of U in such a way that U is always finitely based and A ∈ U. We proceed by induction on the block size of [1, 1]. If this is 1 then A is a finite Abelian algebra of finite type. By Proposition 5.7 A satisfies the laws f (d(x1 , y1 , z1 ), . . . , d(xn , yn , zn )) ≈ d(f (x), f (y), f (z)) for f a basic operation. These laws imply the corresponding laws for f an arbitrary term. In particular, d commutes with itself and so by Lemma 5.6 defines a ternary Abelian group, and any term can be written as a sum (using d) of one and two variable terms, see equation (8) of chapter 9. It follows that the above set of laws of A together with a finite basis for the two variable laws of A, forms a finite basis for the laws of A. We leave the details and the proof that the last statement of the theorem is true in this case with M = 3 to the reader. Now suppose that (1]c = 0 but (1]c−1 6= 0. Of course there are finitely many identities of A which imply that FV (A) (2) is finite. We assume that the laws of U include these laws. By Corollary 14.3 there is a finite set of laws which define Uc relative to U. We assume that the laws of U also include these laws so that U = Uc . Let θ ∈ Con A with 0 ≺ θ ≤ (1]c−1 ≤ ζ. Recall from chapter 4 that A(θ) is θ viewed as a subalgebra of A × A and that ∆θ,1 is the congruence on A(θ) generated by {hha, ai, hb, bii : a, b ∈ A}. Let C = A(θ)/∆θ,1 and B = C × A/θ. Lemma 14.10. C is Abelian. Moreover the block size of [1B , 1B ] is smaller than that of [1A , 1A ].

128


Proof. Let η0 and η1 be the projection congruences on A(θ). Then easy calculations show that η0 + ∆ = η1 + ∆ = 1 for ∆ = ∆θ,1 . Hence in Con A(θ), [1, 1] = [η0 + ∆, η1 + ∆] ≤ ∆ + η0 η1 = ∆. Thus C is Abelian. By Proposition 4.5, [1B , 1B ] = [1C × 1A/θ , 1C × 1A/θ ] = [1C , 1C ] × [1A/θ , 1A/θ ] = 0C × [1A/θ , 1A/θ ]. Hence the block size of [1B , 1B ] equals the block size of [1A/θ , 1A/θ ]. Since θ ≤ [1A , 1A ] the block size of [1A/θ , 1A/θ ] is the block size of [1A , 1A ] divided by the block size of θ. Now by induction and Higman’s Lemma, B has, relative to the laws of U, a finite basis w1 (x, z) ≈ z, . . . , wm (x, z) ≈ z, where the wi ’s are commutators. Moreover there is a K ∈ ω such that if w(x, z) is a commutator in more then K variables then B satisfies w(x, z) ≈ z. Lemma 14.11. Let V be a modular variety and let F = FV(X) be the free algebra generated by an infinite set X. Then the center of F is a fully invariant congruence. Proof. Let d be a Gumm difference term for V and let a, b ∈ F with a ζF b. Then by Theorem 14.1, a and b satisfy (1) and (2) of Theorem 14.1 for any choice of the ci ’s. There is a finite subset X0 of X such that a and b are in the subalgebra generated by X0 . Let x1 , . . . , xn be in X − X0 . Then (1) holds with ci = xi , i = 1, . . . , n. Let δ be an endomorphism of F and let c1 , . . . , cn ∈ F be arbitrary. Let δ ′ be the endomorphism of F that agrees with δ on X − x1 , . . . , xn and xi δ ′ = ci . Of course, aδ = aδ ′ and bδ = bδ ′ . Now we have that (1) of Theorem 14.1 holds with a and b replaced by aδ and bδ. It now follows from that theorem that aδ ζF bδ, as desired. Continuing with Theorem 14.9, we let F = FU(X ∪ z) where X is a countably infinite set. Recall that 0 is a fixed but arbitrary element of A. Since B satisfies wi (x, z) ≈ z and A/θ ∈ V (B), for any substitution of the variables into A with z 7→ 0 we have wi (a, 0)θ0. Since θ is Abelian and minimal it follows from Exercise 3 of Chapter 9 or from Lemma 14.4 that the group associated with each block of θ is an elementary Abelian p-group. Since θ ≤ ζA we have, by Theorem 14.1, that there is a finite set of laws of A which imply that wi (x, z) ζF z, i = 1, . . . , m and that wi (x, z) has order p in F. We may assume U satisfies these laws. Of course the laws of B are the elements in the fully invariant congruence generated by the pairs hwi(x, z), zi. By Lemma 7.6 this is the congruence (5) _ _ (Cg(wi(u1 , . . . , un , u0 ), u0 ) : ui ∈ F ) = Cg(d(wi(u, u0), u0 , z), z)


129

Let w¯i(x1 , . . . , xn , x0 , z) = d(wi (x, x0 ), x0 , z). Since wi (x, z) ζF z, wi (x, x0 ) ζF x0 by Lemma 14.11. Thus we have that w¯i (x, x0 , z) ζF z. Now since B satisfies wi (x, z) ≈ z and wi (x, z) is a commutator we have (6)

b satisfies w¯i (x, x0 , z) ≈ z

(7)

U satisfies wi (z, z, z) ≈ z

Lemma 14.12. Suppose that B satisfies u(x, z) ≈ z. Then there are idempotent terms rj (x, z) such that (8)

u(x, z) =

X

rj (vj , z)

where each vj has the form w¯i (s1 , . . . , sk , s0 , z) for some s0 , . . . , sk ∈ F . Moreover, rj (vj , z) ζF z. Proof. Since u(x, z) ≈ z holds in B, < u(x, z), z > is in the congruence given by (5), i.e., the congruence generated by the pairs algorithmw¯i (s1 , . . . , sn , s0 , Z), zi with si ∈ F. Since w¯i (x, x0 , z) ζF z and the center is a fully invariant congruence of F, the first part of the result now follows from lemma 14.4. Since vi ζF z and rj is idempotent the last statement is also true. Lemma 14.13. Suppose that B satisfies u(x1 , . . . , xn , z) ≈ z and ti (x, z) ≈ z, i = 1, . . . , n. If A satisfies u(z, . . . , z) ≈ z then it satisfies u(t1 (x, z), . . . , tn (x, z), z) ≈ z. Proof. Let f be a homomorphism from F to A and let f (xi ) = ai , i = 1, . . . , n, and let 0 ∈ A denote f (z). Since A/θ is in V (B) and B satisfies ti (x, z) ≈ z, ti (a, 0)θ0. Let ci = ti (a, 0), i = 1, . . . , n, so that ci θ 0. Then, since C = A(θ)/∆θ,1 satisfies u(x, z) ≈ z, we have in A(θ) hu(c1 , . . . , cn , 0), 0i = hu(c1 , . . . , cn , 0), u(0, . . . , 0)i = u(hc1 , 0i, . . . , hcn , 0i, h0, 0i) ≡ h0, 0i mod ∆θ,1 By Theorem 4.9 this implies that hu(c1 , . . . , cn , 0), 0i ∈ [θ, 1] = 0. Hence u(c1, . . . , cn , 0) = 0 in A, proving the lemma. Lemma 14.14. There is a finite set of laws of A which imply u(a1 + v(x, z), a2 , . . . , an , z) = u(a1 , . . . , an , z) for all ai ∈ F and for all u(x, z) and v(x, z) such that B satisfies u(x, z) ≈ z, v(x, z) ≈ z, and U satisfies u(z, z) ≈ z.

130


Proof. Assume that B satisfies u(x, z) ≈ z, v(x, z) ≈ z, and that U satisfies u(z) ≈ z. Since hv, zi is in the fully invariant congruence generated by the hwi , zi, which are contained in ζF by Lemma 14.11, v ζF z. Thus by Proposition 5.7 and the fact u(z, z) = z we have u(a1 + v, a2 , . . . , an , z) = u(d(v, z, a1), d(z, z, a2 ), . . . , d(z, z, an ), d(z, z, z)) = d(u(v, z, . . . , z), u(z, . . . , z), u(a1 , . . . , an , z)) = d(u(v, z, . . . , z), z, u(a1 , . . . , an , z)) = u(a1 , . . . , an , z) + u(v, z, . . . , z, z) for all ai ∈ F. By Lemma 14.13, u(v, z, . . . , z) ≈ z is an identity of A. Hence it suffices to show there is a finite set of laws of A which imply all laws of the form u(v, z, . . . , z) ≈ z, where u and v satisfy the hypotheses of the lemma. Since B satisfies u(x, z) ≈ z, we can use Lemma 14.12 to write u(x, z) in the form (8) as described in the lemma. Writing this out in full gives X (9) u(x, z) = rj (w¯ij (sj1 (x, z), . . . , sjn (x, z), sj0 (x, z), z), z) where the rj are idempotent. If we apply the endomorphism which sends x1 to v and the other generators to z, we have u(v, z, . . . , z) = X (w¯ij (sj1 (v, z, . . . , z), . . . , sjn (v, z, . . . , z), sj0 (v, z, . . . , z), z), z) j

Since v ζF z, sjk (v, z) ζF sjk (z, z). Now in general by Proposition 5.7 if a ζ b then d(d(a, b, c), c, e) = d(a, b, e) (see the proof of (3) above). Thus using Proposition 5.7 we obtain the following where, of course, a − b = d(a, b, z) and a + b = d(a, z, b) (10) u(v, z, . . . , z) =

X

rj (w¯ij (sj1 (v, z)−sj1 (z, z), . . . , sj0 (v, z)−sj0 (z, z), z), z) X + rj (w¯ij (sj1 (z, z), . . . , sj0 (z, z), z), z)

Applying to (9) the endomorphism which sends all the generators to z we obtain X z = u(z, z) = rj (w¯ij (sj1 (z, z), . . . , sj0 (z, z), z), z)


131

From this and (10) we see that it suffices to show that there is a finite set of laws of A which imply the laws (11)

w¯i (ti (v, z), . . . , tn (v, z), t0(v, z), z) ≈ z

where tj (x1 , . . . , xm ) are idempotent. Since v ζF z, tj (v, z) ζF tj (z, z) = z. Thus by equation (3) or (7) of chapter 9 (or by using Proposition 5.7) we have that the left side of (11) is the sum of elements of the form (12)

w¯i (z, . . . , z, tj (v, z), z, . . . , z).

Since B satisfies v(x, z) ≈ z, we have by Lemma 14.12 that v(x, z) = P rj (qj , z) where rj is idempotent and qj has the form w¯ij (p1 , . . . , pn , p0 , z), pi ∈ F. Since rj (qj , z) ζF z by Lemma 14.12, (12) can be expressed as a sum of elements of the form mth

w¯i (z, . . . , z, tm (rj (qj , z), z, . . . , z), . . . , z) It follows that (11) is a consequence of the laws mth

(13)

w¯i (z, . . . , tm (rj (w¯ij (x, y, z), z), . . . , z), . . . , z) ≈ z

Since both tm and rj are idempotent and B satisfies w¯i (x, y, z) ≈ z by (6), B satisfies tm (rj (w¯ij (x, y, z), z), z, . . . , z) ≈ z Thus by Lemma 14.13 equation (13) is a law of A. Since tm (rj (x, z), z, . . . , z) is binary and there are only a fixed number of w¯i , there are only finitely many laws of the form (13). This completes the proof of the lemma. Theorem 14.15. There is an N and a finite set of laws of A such that if these laws are added to the axioms of U then bj ∈ F implies w¯i (b1 , . . . , bn , b0 , z) is a sum of elements of the form ±w¯i (a1 , . . . , an , a0 , z) where each aj is a sum of at most N commutators and an element in the subalgebra generated by z. Proof. Recall that by Lemma 14.8, R(A) is a finite p-group. Let Zp (R(A)) be the P group ring of R(A) over the integers modulo p, i.e., Zp (R(A)) = kρ ρ : kρ ∈ Zp with the multiplication induced from R(A). The Jacobson radical of this ring is the augmentation ideal: P P kρ ρ : kρ = 0. For a proof of this fact see Satz 5.16 on page 484 of Huppert [50]. Hence ρ − 1 is in the radical. Since the ring is finite, the radical is nilpotent, i.e., there is an N such that the product of any N elements of the radical is 0. Thus if ρ1 , . . . , ρN ∈ R(A) then (14)

(ρ1 − 1)(ρ2 − 1) . . . (ρN − 1) = 0

132


in Zp (R(A)). Fix a, a1 , . . . , an ∈ A. For S = {i < j < · · · < k} a subset of {1, .., N} let aS = ai + aj + · · · + ak associated left to right. We claim that the number of even subsets S with a = aS equals modulo p the number of odd subsets with a = aS . To see this let V be a vector space over Zp with the set A as a basis (be careful to note that 0A 6= 0V ). Let Zp (R(A)) act on V by extending the natural action of R(A) on A. In (14) let ρi = ρai then expanding out (14) we have X (−1)|S| ρai ρaj ρak = 0 S

in Zp (R(A)). Applying this to the vector space element 0A (which, recall, is a basis element of V) we obtain X (−1)|S| 0A ρS , (15) 0V = S

where 0A ρS = 0A ρai ρaj . . . ρak = 0+ai +aj +· · ·+ak = ai +aj +· · ·+ak . Looking at the coefficient of a in (15) gives the claim. Hence if w(x, z) ζF z and has order p then for all b2 , . . . , bn ∈ A X (−1)|S| w(aS , b2 , . . . , bn , 0) = 0 S

Thus A satisfies the finite set of laws of the form X (−1)|S| w¯i (x1 , . . . , xj−1 , yS , xj+1 , . . . , xn , x0 , z) ≈ z S

where yS = yi + yj + · · · + yk . One term in this sum has y1 + · · · + yN in the j th place and this law allows us to express this term as a sum of terms in which the j th entry has fewer than N summands. The lemma now follows from Lemma 14.6. Now we are ready to complete the proof of Theorem 14.9. We assume that the finite set of laws which imply the conclusions of Lemma 14.14 and Theorem 14.15 is contained in the laws of U. Let p be the maximum of the number of variables in the w¯i ’s plus 2. Set M = P NK. Let w(x1 , . . . , xn , z) be a commutator with n > M and w actually depending on x1 , . . . , xn . Since M ≥ K, w(x, z) ≈ z is a law of B. By Lemma 14.12 and Lemma 14.6 w(x, z) is a sum of terms of the form (16)

r(w¯i(a1 , . . . , ak , a0 , z), z)

where r(x, z) is an idempotent binary term and where each ai is a sum of commutators and an element from the subalgebra generated by z. By Lemma 14.14 we may assume that no commutator in these sums involves more than K variables. Since r is a binary idempotent term it corresponds to an element of R(U) as defined in chapter 9. Since


133

w¯i (a1 , . . . , ak , a0 , z) ζF z, r will distribute across sums of such elements. (This fact can be derived directly from Proposition 5.7.) Thus using Theorem 14.15 we may assume that the ai ’s are sums of an element of the subalgebra generated by z and at most N commutators. Since k + 2 ≤ P we see that w is a sum of terms each of which lies in a subalgebra of F generated by at most M of the variables, i.e., w(x, z) = u1 (x, z) + · · · + ur (x, z) where ui (x, z) ζ z and ui(x, z) is contained in a subalgebra generated by at most M of the variables. Let w(x, z) involve variables in S and possibly z. Then, since each ui is independent of at least one variable in S, w = wδS∗ = u1 δS∗ + · · · + ur δS∗ = z +···+z =z in F. This proves that there is a finite set of laws of A which imply that any commutator in more than M variables is trivial. Of course the second part of Theorem 14.9 follows from this. The first part follows from this and Higman’s Lemma. Theorem 14.16. If A is a finite nilpotent algebra in a modular variety V, which is a product of algebras of prime power order, then A has a finite basis for its laws. Moreover there is an integer M such that if w(x, z) is a commutator in more then M variables, then A satisfies w(x, z) ≈ z. Proof. Let A be nilpotent of class c and suppose that A is a direct product of A1 , . . . , Ak , where each Ai has prime power order. Then each Ai is nilpotent so by Theorem 14.9 there is an integer M such that if w(x, z) is a commutator in more then M variables then w(x, z) ≈ z is a law of each Ai . Hence w(x, z) ≈ z is a law of A. The proof that A is finitely based is by induction on the block size of [1, 1] as in the proof of Theorem 14.9. Again we choose θ ∈ Con A with 0 ≺ θ ≤ (1]c−1 ≤ ζ and let C = A(θ)/∆θ,1. Let w1 , . . . , wm be a set of commutators such that w1 (x, z) ≈ z, . . . , wm (x, z) ≈ z is a basis of A/θ×C. The only part of the proof of the previous theorem which required that A have prime power order was the proof of Theorem 14.15. However the conclusion of Theorem 14.15, with N = M, follows from the fact that X (−1)|S| w¯i (x1 , . . . , xj−1 , yS , xj+1 , . . . , xn , x0 , z) ≈ z S

134


(where the sum is over all S ⊆ {1, 2, . . . , M +1}) is a law of A, which it is since the left side is a commutator involving more that M variables. It is an open problem if every finite nilpotent algebra is finitely based. However M. Vaughan-Lee [81] has constructed a 12 element nilpotent loop such that there is no M such that commutators in more then M variables are trivial. Thus Theorem 14.9 and Theorem 14.16 are not true for arbitrary finite nilpotent algebras.

CHAPTER 15

Pure Lattice Congruence Identities This chapter is being written.

135

Related Literature Reading the first treatises on general commutator theory was, to many longtime enthusiasts of the subject of varieties, like opening a hidden door onto a bright new world of unsuspected possibilities. It appeared that many problems long solved (or partially solved) for distributive varieties and varieties of modules, could now be attacked directly in modular varieties. The high expectation has been realized, in many instances. We shall mention several areas, and papers, in which commutator theory has been exploited very successfully. Smith [79] obtained new uniqueness theorems for direct decompositions of finite algebras in varieties with permuting congruences. Gumm and Herrmann [42] expanded these results to modular varieties and refined them. Two algebras A and B in a modular variety V are said to be it isotopic in V if there is an algebra C in V and an isomorphism between A × C and B × C which commutes with the projections onto C. (Exercise: If A and B are isotopic in V then C can be taken to be an Abelian algebra in V.) Let A, B, C be algebras in a modular variety V such that the congruences of A satisfy the ascending chain condition, and the congruences below the center of A satisfy the descending chain condition. The authors proved that if A × B and A × C are isomorphic (or merely isotopic in V), then B and C are isotopic in V. They also proved an isotopic refinement theorem for algebras which satisfy these chain conditions. (For finite algebras, these results were essentially proved by B. Jonsson in [53]). The next group of applications appeared in a sequence of five papers co-authored by McKenzie. The first paper, Freese-McKenzie [29], contained a characterization of finitely generated, residually small, modular varieties, proved here in Chapter 10, Section 3. The second, BurrisMcKenzie [8] and [9],determined the structure of locally finite modular varieties with a decidable first order theory. It turned out that these varieties decompose as the product of an Abelian variety and a discriminator variety. This pointed up the desirability of determining which finite rings have a decidable theory of modules, a problem that is still open. the third, Baldwin-McKenzie [1], solved a counting problem 137

138

RELATED LITERATURE

for modular varieties. The weak fine spectrum function of a variety V is the function f (κ) which is defined to be ω plus the number of non-isomorphic κ-element members of V, κ a cardinal. The authors proved that modular varieties of countable type have precisely six different weak fine spectrum functions. McKenzie [64] investigated residual smallness in varieties of rings. It turned out that for these varieties, (and for varieties of linear associative algebras over any commutative ring K) the main theorem of the paper in this series does not require the hypothesis of finite generation. Thus a variety of K-algebras is residually small if and only if it satisfies the congruence identity (C1) of chapter 8. McKenzie [63] used commutator theory to characterize the finitely generated varieties that have only finitely many finite directly indecomposable algebras, after first proving that a variety with this property has permuting congruences. Some of the results from Freese’s papers [26], [27], were proved here in Chapter 10. The results of Chapter 13 are his. The proof of the extension of M. Vaughan-Lee’s finite basis theorem contained in Chapter 14 is his work. The structural relation between the module associated with an Abelian congruence and the algebra, Theorem 9.9, is his. A sequence of important papers by E. Kiss deserve special mention. Kiss [57] proved that a modular variety has the property that principal congruences are always complemented if and only if it decomposes as A ⊗ F where F is a filtral variety (and therefore distributive), and A is an Abelian variety whose ring is semisimple Artinian. This extended the result of C. Herrmann [46] that a variety with complemented modular congruence lattices is Abelian, see exercise 11 of Chapter 5. Kiss [55] investigated the congruence extension property. He succeeded in relating it very closely to two special properties of the commutator. (See Theorem 8.3). This allowed him to prove, for example, that a locally finite modular variety has the congruence extension property if and only if the square of each of its subdirectly irreducible algebras has the property. Closely related to this work is a paper of B. A. Davey and L. G. Kovacs [18], which applies commutator theory to the study of injective hulls, and the existence of enough injectives, in modular varieties. Kiss [58] presented a short and elegant proof of a result of Burris and McKenzie: If K is a finite class if finite algebras such that every member of V = V (K) is a Boolean product of algebras from K,then V is the product of an Abelian variety and a discriminator variety. In a very recent paper, [56], Emil Kiss gave a very nice generalization of Gumm’s difference term. Recall that we defined a difference term to be a term d(x, y, z) such that d(x, x, z) = z and d(x, z, z) [θ, θ] x

RELATED LITERATURE

139

whenever x θ z. Proposition 5.7 gave very useful necessary and sufficient conditions for [α, β] = 0 in terms of this difference term when α and β are comparable. The hypothesis that α and β be comparable is necessary in that theorem. [However, see exercise 8 where it is shown that Proposition 5.7 does work in permutable varieties or if α is Abelian. See also McKenzie [65] for some related theorems using the Gumm terms constructed in Theorem 6.4] Kiss defines a 4-difference term for V to be a term q(x, y, u, v) satisfying q(x, y, x, y) = x and q(x, x, u, u) = u, and if A ∈ V and a c a c′ (∗) , ∈ A(α, β) b d b d (see Definition 4.7) then

q(a, b, c, d) [α, β] q(a, b, c′ , d). In a manner analogous to Theorem 5.5 and Proposition 5.7 he shows that every modular variety possess a 4-difference term, and that it can be used to complete diagrams as shown in the figure. a β

b γ

α c

d

a implies

γ ∨ (α ∧ β) q

β c

b γ

α d

Compare this figure with the figure of Theorem 5.5. He then goes on to prove an analogue of Proposition 5.7, but without the assumption that the congruences are comparable. Namely, he shows that [α, β] = 0 if and only if q : A(α, β) → A is a homomorphism and if (∗) holds then q(a, b, c, d) = q(a, b, c′ , d). In a distributive variety one can take q(x, y, u, v) = u; in a permutable variety with Mal’cev term p(x, y, z) one can take q(x, y, u, v) = q(x, y, v). If q is a 4-difference term then d(x, y, z) = q(x, y, z, z) is a difference term. In this same paper Kiss answers a question raised by McKenzie in [63]. He shows that in a finitely directly representable variety every directly indecomposable algebra is either finite or Abelian. Two recent papers of C. Bergman [2] and [3] studied the congruence extension property in modular varieties. Building on results presented there, Bergman and McKenzie have shown [unpublished] that a residually small modular variety γ with the amalgamation property also possesses the congruence extension property, provided that one of

140

RELATED LITERATURE

these conditions is satisfied: (1) V is distributive; (2) V is a variety of groups; (3) FV(2) is finite. The original Overview manuscript mentioned the problem of finding ring R(V, 1, 0) when V is the variety of groups or of commutative rings. This problem was solved first by David Hobby, essentially before that manuscript was circulated. P. Zlatoˇs solved the problem independently and B. Sivák has calculated these rings for numerous varieties of groups. For the variety of groups the ring is Z[x, x−1 ]. Day and Kiss [22] show that for V the variety of groups, R(V, n, 0) is the group ring over the integers of the free group on n generators. L. G. Kovács in unpublished work clarified exactly how Z[x, x−1 ] acts on an Abelian group congruence. Let H be an Abelian normal subgroup of G and let z ∈ G. Recall that if θ is the congruence associated with H, then M(θ, z) is the H coset containing z with addition defined by a + b = d(a, z, b) = az −1 b. It is easy to see that under this addition each coset is isomorphic to H as an Abelian group. Kovács showed that x (from Z[x, x−1 ]) acts on this coset by conjugation by z. In particular, the modules M(θ, z2 ) will not be isomorphic unless z1−1 z2 lies in the centralizer of H. The paper of A. Day and E. Kiss [22] has already been mentioned above and in connection with congruence identities of locally residually small varieties, in Chapter 8. The paper contains some suggestive results that may turn out to be very significant. For one example: the ring R(V, 1, 0) of a variety is isomorphic to a ring produced via the classical von Neumann Coordinatization process from a natural it frame of congruence in a free algebra. W. A. Lampe, who was one of the independent discoverers of the term condition, used it to show that certain compactly generated lattices can be represented as congruence lattices only by algebras with a large set of operations, see R. Freese, W. A. Lampe, and W. Taylor [28]. Recently he has solved an old problem by showing that M3 is never the lattice of subvarieties of a variety V, Lampe [60]. V here is not assumed to be modular. If we let F be the free algebra FV(ω) with the endomorphism adjoined as additional operations, then it is well known that the lattice of subvarieties of V is dually isomorphic to Con F. Lampe’s proof shows that if V is modular then Con F satisfies [1, 1] = 1 (and hence Con F cannot have an M3 at the top). A. Ursini has worked out a theory of it ideal determined varieties, having a constant 0 and the property that every it ideal is a congruence class of a unique congruence. (Examples: groups, rings, loops.) In Gumm-Ursini [43], the authors proved that every ideal determined

RELATED LITERATURE

141

variety is congruence modular, and they sketched some details of a theory of commutators of ideals. This theory covers a range of varieties in which commutator theory is more directly accessible to the intuition than in the general modular varieties. To conclude, let us address the question: Is viable commutator theory inherently restricted to modular varieties, or is it possible to extend usable fragments of it into some wider arena? The paper P. Zlatoˇs [83], is an attempt to provide axioms for a more general theory. In the book by D. Hobby and R. McKenzie [47], a theory of congruences in finite algebras is developed, called by the authors tame congruence theory, which reveals that the ‘commutator’ C(α, β), defined in Chapter 3, has interesting properties when restricted to locally finite algebras. If we define solvability in terms of this commutator, then the congruence lattice of a locally finite algebra A admits a congruence ∼ under which α ∼ β (where α ≥ β) if and only if restricted to every finite subalgebra B, β|B is solvable over α|B . Moreover, (Con A)/ ∼ satisfies the meet semidistributive law (x ∧ y = x ∧ z ⇒ x ∧ (y ∨ z) = x ∧ y). If A belongs to a locally finite variety that obeys a nontrivial pure congruence identity, then each equivalence class α/ ∼ is a modular lattice; moreover, Abelian congruences of A then have the expected structure, as if A belonged to a modular variety. In the first paragraph of Chapter 8, we remarked that there exist nonmodular varieties which satisfy a nontrivial pure congruence identity. Among the results of McKenzie and Hobby is the theorem that no locally finite variety of this kind can be residually small.

Solutions To The Exercises Chapter 1 1.1. A term for V has the form r1 x1 + · · · + rn xn where ri is either an element of the ring or an integer. (We will usually only unitary Rmodules, in which case each ri is in the ring.) From this description of terms it is easy to see that the term condition holds for all submodules M and N. For the second part let M and N be submodules of a module K. In K × K let A = {hm, 0i : m ∈ M} and B = {h0, ni : n ∈ N} and let π : K × K → K be the homomorphism π(x, y) = x + y. Then π(A) = M and π(B) = N. Since A ∩ B = 0, (2) implies that [M, N] = 0. Chapter 2 2.1. A quasigroup satisfies the cancellation law a · b = a · c ⇒ b = c, since b = a \ (a · b) = a \ (a · c) = c. Similarly a · c = b · c ⇒ a = b. Thus the map b → a · b is one-one. Since a · (a \ b) = b, it is onto as well. A universal algebraic proof of the last statement of the problem is this. Let A be a finite quasigroup and let F = FV (A) (x, y) be the free algebra on two generators. Let B be the smallest subset of F containing x such if b ∈ B then b · y ∈ B. B inherits the cancellation and since F is finite, B is finite. Thus the map b → b · y, b ∈ B, is one-one. Since B is finite and the image is in B, it is onto so there is a b ∈ B such that b · y = x. Of course there is a term t(x, y) using only · which represents b. Hence, x = t(x, y) · y. Since x = (x/y) · y we have t(x, y) = x/y by cancellation. Notice that we have actually proved a little more. Namely x/y is equivalent to a term of the form (· · · (x · y) · y) · · · ) · y. 2.2. We calculate p(x, x, y) = (x/(x \ x)) · (x \ y) = ((x · (x \ x))/(x \ x)) · (x \ y) = x · (x \ y) =y 143

144

SOLUTIONS TO THE EXERCISES

Similar calculations establish the other identities. 2.3. This is established with straightforward calculations; see Day [19]. 2.4. Since hb, di ∈ γ ≤ γ ∨ (θ0 ∧ θ1 ), this follows from the Shifting Lemma (2.4). 2.5. Clearly mi (e, e, c, c) θ m( e, f, d, c) and mi (e, e, c, c) α2 mi (e, e, e, e) = e = mi (e, d, d, e) α2 mi (e, f, d, c). Thus since θ ∧ α2 ≤ ψ, we have mi (e, e, c, c) ψ mi (e, f, d, c). Thus we have the relations indicated in the figure. α1

mi (a, b, d, c) θ mi (a, a, c, c)

mi (e, f, d, c) ψ mi (e, e, d, c)

Thus mi (a, b, d, c) ψ mi (a, a, c, c) by the Shifting Lemma (2.4) and so a ψ c by Lemma 2.3. Chapter 4 4.1. Note p(p(x, b, y), b, b) p(p(x, b, b), b, b) p(x, b, y) x = p(p(b, b, y), b, x) p(p(b, b, b), b, x) p(y, b, x) x

is in M(θ, ψ). Thus p(x, b, y)[θ, ψ]p(y, b, x). Since [θ, ψ] = 0, x + y = y + x. Similarly p(p(x, b, b), b, p(y, b, z)) p(p(x, b, y), b, p(y, y, z)) p(p(x, x, b), b, p(y, b, z)) p(p(x, x, y), b, p(y, y, z)) p(x, b, p(y, b, z)) p(p(x, b, y), b, z) = p(y, b, z) p(y, b, z) shows that x + (y + z) = (x + y) + z. 4.2. Both are the congruence on A(ψ) generated by {hhx, xi, hy, yii : a b x θ y}. The statement ∈ ∆ψ,θ is equivalent to hha, bi, hc, dii bec d a c ing in this congruence which in turn is equivalent to ∈ ∆θ,ψ . b d x y 4.3. Parts (i) and (ii) are obvious as is most of (iii). If ∈ u v u v ∆θ,ψ then ∈ ∆θ,ψ simply because ∆θ,ψ is symmetric. Clearly if x y x y u v ∈ M(θ, ψ) then ∈ M(θ, ψ). Now by Lemma 4.8, ∆θ,ψ is u v x y

CHAPTER 4

145

the transitive closure of M(θ, ψ) and it follows easily from this that the above implication holds for ∆θ,ψ . a a a 4.4. Since ∈ ∆θ,ψ and ∈ θ, a, b, c, and d are θ-related. c d b Now we have the relations indicated in the figure, where the ηi ’s are the projection kernels. b c b d

η1 η0

a c

∆θ,ψ a c

Since η0 ∧ η1 = 0, the result follows from the Shifting Lemma (2.4). x y u v and are in ∆. 4.5. Let ∆ = ∆θ,ψ and suppose u v r s x x y We will apply Lemma 2.3 with a = , b = , c = , and r u s y u v d= . Now algorithmb, di ∈ ∆ by assumption. Since ∆ v r s v u ∆ we have and u v v u v mi (u, u, v, v) u u , ∆ , = , v s r u mi (r, u, v, s) r We also have mi (u, u, v, v) u u v v u = mi , , , ∆ mi (r, r, s, s) r r s s r mi (x, x, y, y) mi (x, x, y, y) Hence by the previous exercise ∆ . This mi (r, u, v, s) mi (r, r, s, s) says m i (a, b, d, c) ∆ mi (a, a, c, c) and so by Lemma 2.3 a ∆ c, i.e., x y ∈ ∆. Thus ∆θ,ψ is a transitive relation on A(ψ) and it contains r s M(θ, ψ). Hence by Lemma 4.8 ∆θ,ψ ⊆ ∆θ,ψ and by symmetry they are equal. V V 4.6. Let γ = ( αi : β).VThen [γ, β] ≤ Vαi and γ is the largest such congruence. Since V V [γ, β] ≤ αi ≤ V αi , γ ≤ (α Vi : β). By monotonicity [ (αi : β), β] ≤ [(αi : β), β] ≤ αi . Hence (αi : β) ≤ γ.

146


Chapter 5 5.1. Let α, β and γ be congruences which pairwise intersect to 0 and pairwise join to 1. Then [1, 1] = [α ∨ β, α ∨ γ] = [α, α] ∨ [α, γ] ∨ [β, α] ∨ [β, γ] ≤ α ∨ (β ∧ γ) = α. Similarly [1, 1] ≤ β and so [1, 1] = 0. 5.2. Clearly (ii) ⇒ (i) ⇒ (iii). Let B is a subdirect power of two copies of A such that Con B has M3 as a 0, 1-sublattice. By the previous exercise B is Abelian. A is a homomorphic image of B, so by Proposition 4.4(1) Ais Abelian. Hence (iii) ⇒(iv). Suppose that A is Abelian and let ∆1,1 be the congruence in Definition 4.7. If follows directly from Theorem 4.9 (and Exercise 4.3(iii)) that ηi ∧ ∆1,1 = 0, where ηi , i = 0, 1 are the projection kernels. Moreover it is shown in the proof of Theorem 4.11 that ηi ∨ ∆11 = 1. Hence (iv) ⇒ (ii). 5.3. By Exercise 2, B is Abelian, and so affine by Herrmann’s theorem. Thus x − y + z is a term operation on B. In particular, B has a Mal’cev term and thus has permutable congruences. Hence the projection kernels permute and join to 1 so the subdirect product is direct. x u 5.4. Suppose that γ◦α . Then there is a b ∈ B such that y v x u u γ α . Then we have y b v u v

x x d(y, b, v) v

α

u b

γ x y

β x b

x x u Hence α γ , showing that α and γ permute. y d(y, b, v) v 5.5. The inverse map is y 7→ d(y, v, u). To see this note that by Proposition 5.7 d(d(x, u, v), v, u) = d(d(x, u, v), d(u, u, v), d(u, u, u)) = d(d(x, u, u), d(u, u, u), d(v, v, u)) = d(x, u, u) = x. It follows that the map is a bijection. Another application of Proposition 5.7 shows that it preserves addition.

CHAPTER 5

147

5.6. To see that (i) holds apply condition (iii) with x = y, z = u = u′, α = γ = 0, and β = 1. This gives d(u, u, y) = y. Now by taking u = u′ it is easy to derive the Shifting Lemma from condition (iii) (cf. Exercise 4 of Chapter 2). As pointed out in Chapter 2, this implies V is modular. Now suppose that a θ b. Apply (iii) to A(θ) with x = z = b a a , y = u′ = ,u= , α = η1 , β = η0 , and γ = ∆θ,θ (the ηi ’s are b b a a d(a, a, a) b the projection kernels). This gives = ∆ , d(a, b, b) d(a, b, b) b which by Theorem 4.9 implies a [θ, θ] d(a, b, b), as desired. (x · y)/(y · x) (1 · y)/(y · 1) (x · y)/(y · x) 1 5.7. = ∈ M(1, 1). (x · 1)/(1 · x) (1 · 1)/(1 · 1) 1 1 Since A is Abelian, this gives (x · y)/(y · x) = 1 and so x · y = y · x. Starting with ((x · y) · z)/(x · (y · z)) in the upper left corner of a matrix, a similar proof gives associativity. 5.8. Let p(x, y, z) be either of the Mal’cev terms given in Exercise 2 of Chapter 2. Then p is a difference term and by Proposition 5.7 it suffices to show that p commutes with the basic operations. By Exercise 1 of Chapter 2 / and \ are equal on G to a term using only the multiplication. Thus it is enough to show that p commutes with multiplication, i.e., (∗)

p(x1 , y1 , z1 ) · p(x2 , y2 , z2 ) = p(x1 · x2 , y1 · y2 , z1 · z2 ).

Since G has 4 elements, there are only 46 = 4096 cases to check. You may want to use a computer. There is an easier solution to this problem. If A is an affine algebra ˆ = hA, +, −, 0i as its Abelian group, then it is not hard to with A show that if t(x, y) is a binary term operation on A then there are ˆ and c ∈ A such that t(x, y) = σ(x) + endomorphisms σ and τ of A τ (y)+c, see Chapter 9. Knowing what to look for, it is not hard to find such a representation for the multiplication in G. Namely start with the four element group which is the direct product of two copies of the two element group, i.e., {0, 1, 2.3} with x + x = 0, and x + y = z if x and y are distinct members of {1, 2, 3} and z is the remaining member. Let σ be the identity, τ transpose 2 and 3, and c = 3. Since τ is an automorphism of the group, the operation x · y = x + τ (y) + 3 defines an Abelian quasigroup which equals G. 5.9. Take the cyclic group of order four, {0, 1, 2, 3}, and let σ interchange 2 and 3. Then the multiplication of the given quasigroup is x·y = σ(x)+y. Since σ is not a group automorphism, A is not Abelian. In fact (∗) of the previous solution fails with y1 = 1 and all other

148


variables 0. However, it is possible to show that p(x, y, z) = x − y + z and thus x +c y = p(x, c, y) is an Abelian group operation. 5.10. It is routine to verify that G is a loop with h0, 0i as its identity element and that the second projection is a homomorphism. It is also easy to see that H ∼ = Z4 . Suppose that [θ, θ] = 0. Then for all z ∈ H, and all x, y, y ′ with yθy ′ (∗)

(x + (y + z))/(x + y) = (x + (y ′ + z))/(x + y ′).

To see this just note that the following matrix is in M(θ, θ). (x + (y + z))/(x + y) (x + (y + 0))/(x + y) (x + (y ′ + z))/(x + y) (x + (y ′ + 0))/(x + y ′ ) (x + (y + z))/(x + y) 0 = (x + (y ′ + z))/(x + y ′) 0

Now if we let z = h1, 0i, x = h0, 1i, y = h1, 1i, and y ′ = h2, 1i then the left side of (∗) evaluates to h2, 2i/h0, 2i = h2, 0i and the right side evaluates to h3, 2i/h2, 2i = h1, 0i. Thus (∗) fails in G and hence [θ, θ] 6= 0. 5.11. Since the congruence lattices are complemented, every subdirectly irreducible algebra in V is simple. If all of these subdirectly irreducible algebras are Abelian then V is Abelian. Thus let A be a simple, non-Abelian algebra in V. Let I be an infinite set and let B the direct product of |I| copies of A. Define λ ∈ Con B by xλy if and only if xi = yi for all but finitely many i. Let λ′ be a complement of λ in Con B, and let ηi be the kernel of the projection onto the ith coordinate. Clearly ηi 6≥ λ. If λ′ ≤ ηi for all i, then λ′ = 0. But then λ = 1, which is false. Thus, for some i, λ′ 6≤ etai . From this and the fact that ηi is a coatom it follows that ηi ∧ (λ ∨ λ′ ), ηi , ηi ∧ (λ′ ∨ λ) generates an M3 with greatest element 1. But then [1, 1] ≤ ηi , which implies A is Abelian by Proposition 4.4(1). This contradiction proves that V is Abelian. Chapter 6 6.1. By reversing the roles of α and β in Theorem 6.2 we obtain β ◦α ⊆ [β]k ◦α◦β. Now if hx, yi ∈ α◦β then hy, xi ∈ β ◦α ⊆ [β]k ◦α◦β. Hence hx, yi ∈ β ◦ α ◦ [β]k , as desired. 6.2. By the last exercise α ◦ β ⊆ β ◦ α ◦ [β]n . By Theorem 6.2 α ◦ [β]n ⊆ [α]m ◦ [β]n ◦ α and hence α ◦ β ⊆ β ◦ [α]m ◦ [β]n ◦ α. Of course if [α]m and [β]n permute for some m and n, then α ◦ β ⊆ β ◦ α as [α]m ⊆ α and [β]n ⊆ β.

CHAPTER 6

149

6.3. Clearly it suffices to show that if α and β permute then [α, α] and β permute. Suppose that x [α, α] y β z. Then since α and β permute there is some u such that x β u α z. Thus we have the relations indicated in the figure. β

u

x

α z

[α, α] y

By the shifting lemma u [α, α] ∨ (α ∧ β) z. We will show that [α, α] and α ∧ β permute. From this it follows that for some v we have x β u α ∧ β v [α, α] z, i.e., x β v [α, α] z, showing that [α, α] and β permute. To see that [α, α] and α ∧ β permute observe by the previous exercise, with n = m = 1, (α ∧ β) ◦ [α, α] ⊆ [α, α] ◦ [α, β]1 ◦ [[α, α]]1 ◦ (α ∧ β) = [α, α] ◦ (α ∧ β) since both [α ∧ β]1 and [[α, α]]1 are contained in [α, α]. 6.4. Suppose that (α, α]m = 0 = (β, β]n . We claim that (α ∨ β, α ∨ β]m+n = 0. Now (α ∨ β, α ∨ β]m+n is the commutator of m + n + 1 copies of α ∨ β, associated right to left. If we expand this using the commutator, we obtain a sum of terms of the form [γ0 , [γ1 , . . . [γm+n−1 , γm+n ] . . .], where each γi is either α or β. Now either there are at least m + 1 γ’s equal to α or n + 1 γ’s equal to β. Thus each term in our sum is either less then or equal to (α]m or (β]n , and hence 0. 6.5. Let x, y ∈ A ∈ V and suppose that x θ y. We must show that x [θ, θ] p(x, y, y). Since p(x, y, y) = qn (x, y, y), and q0 = x, it suffices to show that, for each i, qi (x, y, y) [θ, θ] qi+1 (x, y, y). For i even the two sides are actually equal by Theorem 6.4(3). For i odd first we need to show that for all i, qi (x, y, y) [θ, θ] qi (x, x, y). The following matrix is in M(θ, θ): qi (x, y, y) qi (x, x, y) qi (x, y, y) qi (x, x, y) = . qi (x, y, x) qi (x, x, x) x x

Hence qi (x, y, y) [θ, θ] qi (x, x, y), as desired. Now for i odd, qi (x, y, y) [θ, θ] qi (x, x, y) = qi+1 (x, x, y) [θ, θ] qi+1 (x, y, y), proving the result. 6.6. Each of (1) to (8) is either obvious or can be verified by straightforward calculations. For example, to see that (3) holds, suppose that K(a, b, c, d) holds and that s(c, a, e) = s(c, b, e). Let u =

150


s(d, a, e), v = s(d, b, e), and w = s(c, a, e) = s(c, b, e). We need to show that u = v. Using K(a, b, c, d) (with the s(a, e) = s(a, e0 , . . . , ek ) from the definition of K(a, b, c, d) taken to be s(e0 , a, e1 , . . . , ek ) from the present context) we have qi (u, w, v) = qi (s(d, a, e), s(c, b, e), s(d, b, e)) = qi (s(d, a, e), s(d, b, e), s(d, b, e)) = qi (u, v, v). Similarly qi (u, w, v) = qi (u, u, v). Hence qi (u, v, v) = qi (u, u, v). Thus, by Theorem 6.4, u = p(u, v, v). But K(a, b, c, d) also implies that p(u, v, v) = p(w, w, v) = v. Hence u = v, as desired. To see (4) use (2) and (3) repeatedly: H(a, b, c, d) → K(a, b, c, d) → H(c, d, a, b) → K(c, d, a, b) → H(a, b, c, d). Let θ = Cg(a, b) and ψ = Cg(c, d) and assume that K(a, b, c, d) holds. Then it follows from (4) to (8) that K(a, b) = {hx, yi : K(a, b, x, y)} is a congruence and hc, di is in this congruence. Hence ψ ⊆ K(a, b) and so if hu, vi ∈ ψ then K(a, b, u, v) holds. Repeating this argument we get that K(x, y, u, v) [and hence H(x, y, u, v)] holds whenever hx, yi ∈ θ and hu, vi ∈ ψ. We want to show that C(a, b, c, d) holds, i.e., [θ, ψ] = 0. We show this by showing the θ, ψ term condition holds. So let t be a term operation and xi θ yi, i = 0, . . . , m−1 and ui ψ vj , j = 0, . . . , k−1. t(x, u) t(x, v) Then ∈ M(θ, ψ). Suppose t(x, u) = t(x, v). We want t(y, u) t(y, v) t(y, u) = t(y, v). First observe that we may assume that m = 1, i.e., x = (x) and y = (y), since the general case of the term condition can be derived from this. Let w = t(x, u) = t(x, v) and u = t(y, u) and v = t(y, v). Just as in the argument above, it will suffice to show that qi (u, u, v) = qi (u, w.v) = qi (u, v, v), for i = 0, . . . , n, and p(u, v, v) = p(w, w, v). By Theorem 6.4(2), we have qi (t(y, u), t(x, u), t(y, u)) = qi (t(y, u), t(y, u), t(y, u)) By the symmetry in (4) we have H(uj , vj , x, y), j = 0, . . . , k − 1. Applying this k times to (the last u in) the above equation we obtain: qi (t(y, u), t(x, u), t(y, v)) = qi (t(y, u), t(y, u), t(y, v)). Thus qi (u, w, v) = qi (u, u, v). Similarly qi (u, w, v) = qi (u, v, v) and p(w, w, v) = p(u, v, v), as desired. Hence [θ, ψ] = 0, i.e., K(a, b, c, d) → C(a, b, c, d). Now by (1) they are equivalent. 6.7. By Gumm’s result, in every case we have that p(x, y, y) = x whenever hx, yi ∈ α. Let D = hx, y, zi : x α y β z ⊆ A3 . First, suppose that p : D → A is a homomorphism. We wish to prove that

CHAPTER 6

151

[α, β] = 0. By the result of the previous exercise, it will suffice to prove that H(a, b, c, d) holds for all ha, bi ∈ α and hc, di ∈ β. To do this, suppose that s(x, y, z) is a k + 2-ary term, that e ∈ Ak , and that s(a, c, e) = s(a, d, e). We apply our assumption to the elements hb, a, ai, hc, c, di, hei , ei , ei i of D. Thus we get p(s(b, c, e), s(a, c, e), s(a, d, e)) = s(p(b, a, a), p(c, c, d), . . . , p(ei , ei , ei ), . . .) = s(b, d, e). Since s(b, c, e) = s(b, d, e), the displayed equations yield s(b, c, e) = s(b, d, e) as desired. This completes the proof that [α, β] = 0 if p : D → A is a homomorphism. Now suppose that [α, β] = 0. Thus C(α, β; 0) (see Definition 3.2). To prove that p|D is a homomorphism let f be a basic k-ary operation of A and let x α y β z with x, y, z ∈ Ak . It must be show that p(f (x), f (y), f (z)) = f (p(x, y, z)) where p(x, y, z) denotes the obvious k-tuple of elements of A. This desired equation can be rewritten as p(f (x), f (y), f (p(y, y, z))) = p(f (y), f (y), f (p(x, y, z))). If we replace the zi by yi , we do obtain a true equation, with both sides equal to f (x). The desired equation now follows from C(β, α; 0). 6.8. Let C = A × B and η0 , η1 be the projection congruences on C, where each of A and B has permuting congruences. According to Exercise 4 in Chapter 5, ηi permutes with all congruences of C. Note that whenever a congruence β permutes with each of δ0 and δ1 then β permutes with δ0 + δ1 . Now suppose that β permutes with [α, η0 ] and with [α, η1 ]. Then by Theorem 6.2, α ◦ β ⊆ [α, α] ◦ β ◦ α ⊆ ([α, η0 ] ∨ [α, η1 ]) ◦ β ◦ α = β ◦ ([α, η0 ] ∨ [α, η1 ]) ◦ α = β ◦ α, so that β permutes with α. By two applications of this observation we reduce our work to showing that congruences permute if each of them lies below one of the ηi . Of course, two congruences lying above ηi (for fixed i) must permute, since the congruences of C/ηi permute. Consider first the case α ∨ β ≤ η0 . The congruences α ∨ η1 = α ◦ η1

152


and β ∨ η1 = β ◦ η1 permute. Thus α ◦ β ⊆ (β ∨ η1 ) ◦ (α ∨ η1 ) = β ◦ η1 ◦ α ◦ η1 = β ◦ α ◦ η1 . giving α ◦ β ⊆ η0 ∩ ((β ◦ α) ∩ η0 ) ◦ η1 ) = β ◦ α. Consider now the case α ≤ η0 , β ≤ η1 . Note that α = α ∨ (η0 ∩ β) = η0 ∩ (β ∨ α). Note also that α ◦ β ⊆ η0 ◦ β = β ◦ η0 . Thus we have α ◦ β ⊆ β ◦ (η0 ∩ (β ∨ α)) = β ◦ α. this completes the proof that all congruences of C permute. Chapter 7 7.1. Let B = {0, 1, 2} with addition modulo 3. Define a transfer function T : B2 → B for addition by T (1, 1) = 1 and T (x, y) = 0 for all hx, yi = 6 h1, 1i. Let A = B ⊗T B. It is easy to see that A is a loop with identity h0, 0i. Let η be the kernel of the projection onto the second coordinate. As in the proof of Corollary 7.2, η is a congruence such that η ≤ ζA and A/η is Abelian. Since B is simple, either ζA = η or ζA = 1. In the latter case A would be Abelian. To see that this cannot happen, Let x · y denote the operation on A, so that hx0 , x1 i·hy0, y1 i = hx0 +y0 , x1 +y1 i unless x1 = y1 = 1 in which case it is hx0 +y0 +1, x1 +y1 i. Let p(x, y, z) = x·(y\z). Then p is a Mal’cev term for A and if we let x = x′ = h0, 1i, y = y ′ = h0, 0i, and z = z ′ = h0, 2i then p(x·x′ , y·y ′, z·z ′ ) = h1, 0i but p(x, y, z)·p(x′ , y ′, z ′ ) = h0, 0i. Hence A is not Abelian and thus η = ζA , which implies that A/ζA ∼ = Z/3, as desired. 7.2. Let A be a nilpotent loop having four elements. If it is not Abelian then by Corollary 7.5 it must be class two and by Corollary 7.2 it must have the form B⊗T C where B and C are two element loops. Up to isomorphism there is only one loop of order 2, the integers modulo 2. Thus B ∼ = C. Now B ⊗T B must have an identity element and this must be either h0, 0i or h1, 0i. For the former to be the identity we must have T (x, y) = 0 if either x or y is 0. However one can easily check that if T (1, 1) = 1 then B ⊗T B is isomorphic to Z/4 and of course if T (1, 1) = 0 then it is isomorphic to Z/2 × Z/2. A similar argument works when h1, 0i is the identity.

CHAPTER 7

153

Showing that an arbitrary loop of order four is Abelian involves looking at the various cases for the multiplication table but is not difficult. 7.3. Let θ0 = θ and θk+1 = [1, θk ]. Since A is nilpotent and θ 6= 0, there is a positive integer r such that θr = 0 and θr−1 6= 0. Then [1, θr−1 ] = θr = 0. Hence 0 < θr−1 ≤ θ ∧ ζ. 7.4. We prove this by induction on |A|. Let θ = ζ ∩ B 2 ∈ Con B. Since B is nilpotent, θ is uniform by Corollary 7.5. Since B/θ is a subalgebra of A/ζ, |B/θ| divides |A/ζ| by induction. Now let b ∈ B. By the uniformity |B/θ| = |B|/|b/θ| and |A/ζ| = |A|/|b/ζ|. Hence |b/ζ| |B| divides |A|. But b/ζ is a ternary group and b/θ is a ternary |b/θ subgroup. Thus |b/θ| divides |b/ζ|. Hence |B| divides |A|. 7.5. Let Z = 1/ζ and choose b ∈ A − Z. Let B be the subalgebra generated by b. Then |B| is either 1 or p or p2 . The first case is out because 1 is the only idempotent element of a loop. Suppose that |B| = p. Since B is a subalgebra of A, B is nilpotent. Since |B| = p, B is an Abelian loop. By Exercise 7 of Chapter 5, B is a cyclic group of order p. Since B ∩ Z = 1 and every element of Z commutes and associates with all elements of A, it is not hard to see that every element of A has the form bi c for some i, 0 ≤ i < p, and c ∈ Z. Using this it follows that every element of A commutes and associates with all elements of A. This implies A is Abelian, contradicting |A/ζ| = p. Thus we must have |B| = p2 , i.e., A = B and so A is generated by b. 7.6. Using the first relation of Lemma 7.3 we have q(a, b, b) = fn (a, b, b) = fn (p(a, b, b), b, b) = a and q(b, b, a) = fn (b, a, b) = fn (p(a, a, b), a, b) = a. 7.7. Clearly p is a Mal’cev term for A. Let θ be the equivalence relation on A with two blocks, G and H. It is easy to verify that θ is a congruence relation on A and that A/θ is isomorphic to the twoelement ternary group. Thus [1, 1] ≤ θ. By Proposition 5.7 to show that [θ, θ] = 0 we need to show that p commutes with itself on the block of θ. Since p(x, y, z) = x − y + z on these blocks, this is clear. Hence A is solvable. Now it is easy to use this algebra to construct a solvable algebra which fails to satisfy the conclusions of Lemma 7.3-Corollary 7.7. For Lemma 7.6, if a, b ∈ G and c ∈ H with a 6= b then Cg(a, b) 6= 0 but Cg(p(a, b, c), c) = Cg(c, c) = 0. For Corollary 7.7, let β ∈ Con A be

154


defined by hx, yi ∈ β if x, y ∈ G or x = y. Then β and θ have a block in common but are not equal. So A does not have regular congruences. 7.8. Assume that the relation holds for n and let x′ = fn (p(x, b, c), b, c) so that x′ (1]n x by assumption. Then fn+1 (p(x, b, c), b, c) = p(b, p(b, p(x, b, c), p(x′ , b, c)), x′ ). Now the following matrix is in M((1]n , 1) p(b, p(b, p(x, b, c), p(x′ , b, c)), x′ ) p(b, p(b, p(x, x, b), p(x′ , b, b)), x′ ) p(b, p(b, p(x, b, c), p(x, b, c), x) p(b, p(b, p(x, x, b), p(x, b, b)), x) p(b, p(b, p(x, b, c), p(x′ , b, c)), x′ ) b = b b Thus by Definition 3.2(2), fn+1 (p(x, b, c), b, c) (1]n+1 x, as desired. 7.9. If α and β are congruences on A which have a common block then α ∨ β and β have the same common block. So if A is not regular then it has congruences α > β which share a block. In A/β the congruence α/β is nontrivial but has a block with one element. This contradicts the hypothesis that all the homomorphic images of A have uniform congruences. Chapter 8 8.1. Let [α, β] = α ∧ β for all congruence α and β of A. Then for congruences χ, φ, ψ we have χ ∧ (φ ∨ ψ) = [χ, φ ∨ ψ] = [χ, φ] ∨ [χ, ψ] = (χ ∧ φ) ∨ (χ ∧ ψ) showing that Con A is a distributive lattice. 8.2. It suffices to prove the result for subdirect product of two factors. So suppose that A and B are neutral and that C ⊆ A × B with p0 (C) = A and p1 (C) = B. Let ηi (i = 0, 1) be the kernels of pi . Let ν, µ be any two congruences of C. Using the assumption about A and B and Remark 4.6, we find that [ν, µ] ∨ ηi = (ν ∨ ηi ) ∧ (µ ∨ ηi ), implying that ν ∧ µ ≤ [ν, µ] ∨ ηi and so ν ∧ µ = [ν, µ] ∨ (ν ∧ µ ∧ ηi ). This is true also when we replace ν by ν ∧ ηi and mu by µ ∧ ηi . Thus we obtain ν ∧ µ ∧ ηi = [ν ∧ ηi , µ ∧ ηi ] ∨ (ν ∧ ηi ∧ µ ∧ ηi ∧ η1−i ) = [ν ∧ ηi , µ ∧ ηi ]. Putting the two displayed equations together gives ν ∧ µ = [ν, µ], as desired. If V = V0 ∨ V1 , where V is modular and V0 and V1 are distributive, then FV(3) is a subdirect product of FV0 (3) and FV1 (3). Hence FV(3)

CHAPTER 8

155

is neutral and so by the previous exercise, Con FV(3) is distributive. Now by Jónsson’s Theorem 2.1, V is distributive. 8.3. The exercise is to prove that a variety V is distributive if and only if it satisfies (C3) if and only if its finite subdirect products possess no skew congruences. According to the result of Exercise 1, V |= (C3) implies V is distributive. If V is distributive and C is a subdirect product of A and B in V with projection congruences ηi , and if ψ is any congruence of C, then ψ = ψ ∨ (η0 ∧ η1 ) = (ψ ∨ η0 ) ∧ (ψ ∨ η1 ); hence ψ is not skew. Finally, suppose that V has no skew congruence on finite subdirect products. We shall show that this implies V |= (C3). If (C3) fails, then there is A in V with a nonzero Abelian congruence β. The algebra A(β) (see Definition 4.7 and the proof of Theorem 4.10) has congruences ∆β,β , η0 , η1 forming an M3 . Thus A(β) is the subdirect product of A(β)/η0 and A(β)/η1 , and it is clear that ∆β,β is skew. 8.4. Suppose that a is an element in a modular lattice L satisfying a ∧ (x ∨ y) = (a ∧ x) ∨ (a ∧ y) for all elements x and y. By joining x to both sides of the equation we obtain (a ∨ x) ∧ (x ∨ y) = x ∨ (a ∧ y). Then meet with y we obtain (a ∨ x) ∧ y = (x ∧ y) ∨ (a ∧ y). Finally, joining with a we obtain (a ∨ x) ∧ (a ∨ y) = a ∨ (x ∧ y). The proof of the equivalence of the conditions a ∧ (x ∨ y) = (a ∧ x) ∨ (a ∧ y) (for all x, y) and (a ∨ x) ∧ (a ∨ y) = a ∨ (x ∧ y) (for all x, y) is now concluded by dualizing the above argument. Now if a satisfies these equations then it is clear that x 7→ ha ∨ x, a ∧ xi is a homomorphism of L onto a subdirect product of the interval lattice 1/a and a/0. To see that the function is injective, suppose that a ∨ x = a ∨ y and a ∧ x = a ∧ y. Then x = x ∧ (a ∨ x) ∧ (a ∨ y) = x ∧ (a ∨ (x ∧ y)) = (x ∧ a) ∨ (x ∧ y) = (y ∧ a) ∨ (x ∧ y) ≤ y, and the same argument shows that y ≤ x, so x = y. Now suppose that Con A |= (C1). According to the discussion preceding Theorem 8.1, the element a = [1A , 1A ] of Con A satisfies the above conditions, i.e. is neutral. Thus Con A is embeddable subdirectly into the product of the interval lattices 1/a and a/0. 8.5. Let Con A |= (C1). Suppose that α and β are Abelian congruences of A. Observe that [α, β] ≤ [α ∨ β, α ∨ β], so that by (C1) [α, β] = [[α, β], α ∨ β] = [[α, β], α] ∨ [[α, β], β] ≤ [α, α] ∨ [β, β] = 0A . Thus Wα, β Abelian implies [α, α] = [α, β] = [β, β] = 0A . Now let α = {αi : i ∈ I} where {αi : i ∈ I} is the set of all the Abelian congruences of A. Since the commutator is completely additive and, as we just showed, [αi , αj ] = 0A for all i and j then it follows readily that α is Abelian. Clearly α is the largest Abelian congruence of A. 8.6. We prove the harder of the two statements of the exercise. Let ε be a congruence equation such that V |= (Ci) implies V |= ε (i = 3, 4)

156


for all modular varieties V. We are to show that this implication is valid also for i = 2. So let V be a modular variety that satisfies (C2). Let A be the variety of Abelian algebras in V. Choose any algebra A in V, and set L = Con A. Let u = [1A , 1A ]. Now we also have that V |= (C1) (in fact, (C2) implies (C1)). So by the result of Exercise 4, L is a subdirect of the intervals 1/u and u/0. It is easy to see that this subdirect representation preserves commutators. Hence the commutation lattice hL, x∧y, x∨y, [x, y], 0, 1i is a subdirect product of commutation lattices L0 and L1 whose universes are the intervals 1/u and u/0, respectively. To see that L |= ε, which is the point of the exercise, one is thus reduced to a consideration of the commutation lattices Li . Now L0 is naturally isomorphic to the commutation lattice of the algebra A/u, which belongs to A. Since A |= (C4), it follows that L0 |= ε. On the other hand, L1 = hu/0, x ∧ y, x ∨ y, x ∧ yi, a distributive lattice with trivial commutator (equal to the meet). The proof can be concluded by showing that L1 can be embedded into the commutation lattice of an algebra in a distributive variety (in fact we can choose the variety of lattices), for this will imply that L1 |= ε. This is very easy to do. We can ignore the commutator since it is trivial, and regard L1 simply as a distributive lattice with 0 and 1. L1 is a sublattice of some Boolean lattice, which in turn is isomorphic to a sublattice of its own congruence lattice. 8.7. Let R be a ring with unit. For any ideal J of R, J · R = R · J = J, due to the presence of a unit element. Equivalently, for any congruence θ of R, [θ, 1R ] = θ. 8.8. Suppose that L = Con A satisfies (C8) and α, β ∈ L satisfy α ∨ β = 1, α ∧ β = 0, α ◦ β = β ◦ α. Then the natural homomorphism A to A/α × A/β is an isomorphism. Thus we can assume that α and β are the projection congruences on a product algebra A = C × D. Now by the proof in Theorem 8.5 that (1) ⇒ (5), it follows that α and β are neutral in L and that π(λ) = hα ∨ λ, β ∨ λi defines an isomorphism between L and (1/α) × (1/β), where the interval lattices 1/α and 1/β are complete and isomorphic V to Con C andVCon D, respectively. From this it follows that f ( {λt : t ∈ T }) = {f (λt ) : t ∈ T } for every family {λt : t ∈ T } ⊆ L, and this implies that f is a complete endomorphism of L, as asserted. (Note that f trivially preserves infinite joins.) 8.9. The algebra A is actually simple and non-Abelian, from which its neutrality follows trivially. To see this, let θ be any nonzero congruence of A. We can choose a0 6= 0 with h0, a0i ∈ θ, then choose k − 1 more elements forming a vector space basis a0 , a1 , . . . , ak−1 of V. Now

CHAPTER 9

157

for all x, y ∈ A. x · y = f (a0 , . . . , ak−1 , x, y) ≡ f (0, a1 , . . . , ak−1, x, y) (mod θ) =0 = g(0, a1 , . . . , ak−1 , x, y) ≡ g(a0 , a1 , . . . , ak−1 , x, y) (mod θ) = x ⊕ y. The calculation shows that x·y ≡ x⊕y (mod θ), implying that hx, yi ∈ θ. Thus θ is 1A . The calculation also displays the fact that the lattice operations x · y and x ⊕ y are polynomial operations of A, and this implies A is non-Abelian. Now to show that every algebra in V (A) generated by k − 1 or fewer elements is Abelian, it suffices to prove this for the subalgebras of A that are generated by k − 1 or fewer elements, because the free algebra F = FV (A) (k − 1) is a subdirect product of these algebras. So let B be the subalgebra of A generated by elements b0 , . . . , bk−2 . Let W be the vector subspace of V subspace by b0 , . . . , bk−2 . On W the operations f and g are constant, giving only the value 0. (This follows from the definition of f and g.) Thus, clearly, W is a subuniverse of A, and we must have W = B. Then hB, +, −, f, gi = hB, +, −, 0, 0i and so B is Abelian. 8.10. Every subgroup of an Abelian group is a normal subgroup. That Abelian groups have the congruence extension property follows easily from this. Now suppose that V is a variety of groups in which congruences can always be extended. Thus, by Theorem 8.4, whenever A is a group in V and B, H, K are subgroups of A with H and K normal in A, then [H∩B, K∩B] = [H, K]∩B. Suppose that A is nonAbelian. Then there exists a nontrivial cyclic subgroup B ⊆ [A, A]. Taking H = K = A in the above formula leads to an immediate contradiction. Chapter 9 9.1.. Suppose A is Abelian and R = R(V (A)) is commutative. Using equation (10) we see that x·y = rx+sy +c for some r, s ∈ R and c ∈ A. Then (x·y)·(u·v) = (rx+sy +c)·(ru+sv +c) = r 2 x+rsy +rc+ sry +s2v +sc+c. Also (x·y)·∗y ·v) = r 2 x+rsy +rc+sry +s2v +sc+c, and so (x · y) · (u · v) = (x · u) · y · v) follows from the commutativity of R. Now suppose that the identity holds. It says that · commutes with itself. From this we can show that each of ·, /, and \ commute with

158


each other and with themselves. For example, to see that / commutes with itself we calculate x = [((x/y)/(u/v)) · (u/v)] · [(y/v) · v] = [((x/y)/(u/v)) · (y/v)] · [(u/v) · v] = [((x/y)/(u/v)) · (y/v)] · u. Hence ((x/y)/(u/v)) · (y/v) = x/u. But [(x/u)/(y/v)] · (y/v) = x/u also. Thus (x/y)/(u/v) = (x/u)/(y/v), as desired. To see that · and / commute, calculate [(x/y) · (u/v)] · (y · v) = [(x/y) · y] · [(u/v) · v] = x · u Since [(x·u)]/(y·v)]·(y·v) = x·u also, we have (x\y)·(u\) = (x·u)/(y·v). Which shows · and \ commute. Thus the basic operations and hence all term operations commute with each other. By Proposition 5.7, A is Abelian. If r, s ∈ R then rs = r(s(u, v), v) = r(s(u, v), s(v, v)) = s(r(u, v), r(v, v)) = s(r(u, v), v) = sr. To see the second statement first suppose that V (A) is permutable and every basic operation of A commutes with every idempotent term operation of A. Then every idempotent term operation commutes with every other idempotent term operation. By Proposition 5.7, A is Abelian and since the elements of R(V (A)) are idempotent terms, it is commutative as above. Now suppose that A is Abelian and R = R(V (A)) is commutative. Choose an arbitrary element 0 in A and let R act on A by r·a = r(a, 0), as usual. If f is an n-ary term operation on A then since A is Abelian there are elements rf 1 , . . . , rf n ∈ R and cf ∈ A (∗)

f (x1 , . . . , xn ) = rf 1 · x1 + · · · + rf n · xn + cf .

If g is an m-ary term operation then it has a similar representation g(x1 , . . . , xm ) = rg1 · x1 + · · · + rgm · xm + cg . If one writes out both f (g(x11 , . . . , x1m ), . . . , g(xn1 , . . . , xnm )) and also g(f (x11 , . . . , xn1 ), . . . , f (x1m , . . . , xnm )) in terms of the above representations and uses the fact that R is commutative, one sees that f and g commute if and only if (∗∗)

(rf 1 + · · · + rf n − 1) · cg = (rg1 + · · · + rgm − 1) · cf

holds in A. Now suppose that f is idempotent. Then it follows from the representation (∗) with x1 = · · · = xn = 0, that cf = 0. If we let x1 = · · · = xn = x in (∗) we see that (rf 1 + · · · + rf n ) · x = x for all

CHAPTER 9

159

x ∈ A. Now by (∗∗) it is clear that f then commutes with every term operation. 9.2. Let G be the group on {0, 1, 2, 3} isomorphic to the direct of two copies of the group with two elements. Thus, in G, x + x = 0 and x + y = z if {x, y, z} = {1, 2, 3}. Let σ = (12) and τ = (23) be permutations of {0, 1, 2, 3}. Then σ, τ ∈ Aut(G). Let A be the quasigroup on {0, 1, 2, 3} defined by x · y = σ(x) + τ (y). Then A is an Abelian quasigroup (by Corollary 5.9). Let p be a Mal’cev term for quasigroups. (Two such are given in Exercise 2 of Chapter 2.) Clearly, r(u, v) = p(u · v, v · v, v) and s(u, v) = p(v · u, v · v, v) are both in R(V (A)); see (9) of Chapter 9. If we take 0 ∈ A as our zero element, then r · a = σ(a) and s · a = τ (a) for a ∈ A. Since σ and τ do not commute, r and s do not commute, and so R(V (A)) is not commutative. Hence, by Proposition 9.6, the ring R(V) is not commutative for the variety V of quasigroups. 9.3. D is a division ring by Schur’s lemma. Namely if δ ∈ D then both the range of δ and the kernel (= {a ∈ M(β) : δ(a) = 0}) are submodules of M(β) as an R-module. Since M(β) is simple, it has no nontrivial submodules. Thus either δ = 0 or the kernel of δ is 0 and the range is M(β), i.e., δ is an automorphism and so invertible. Hence D is a division ring. Recall that a ∈ ιi M(β, zi ), means that aj = zj for all j 6= i. Let m ∈ R have all entries 0 except mii = 1 (that is, mii = u). Then a ∈ ιi M(β, zi ) if and only if m · a = a. If δ is an endomorphism and m · a = a then δ(a) = δ(m · a) = m · δ(a), showing ιi M(β, zi ) is a D-subspace. Suppose that a1 , . . . , an ∈ M(β, zi ) are such that ιi a1 , . . . , ιi an are D-linearly independent and that b1 , . . . , bn ∈ M(β, zj ). By the Jacobson Density Theorem (Theorem 1.12 of Chapter 9 of Hungerford [49]) there is an m ∈ R such that m · (ιi ak ) = ιi bk . Let mji = φj (r(u, v)) with r(u, v) ∈ Hij and let g(x) = r(x, z). Then g(ak ) = bk , of course. If A is finite then D is finite and hence its prime subfield has characteristic p for some prime p. Each block is a finite vector space over the prime subfield and thus has order pi for some i. 9.4. To prove the first it clearly suffice to prove it in the case that α/β ր γ/δ, i.e., γ = α ∨ δ and β = α ∧ δ. Suppose that [ϕ, α] ≤ β. Then [ϕ, γ] = [ϕ, α ∨ δ] = [ϕ, α] ∨ [ϕ, δ] ≤ β ∨ δ = δ. If [θ, γ] ≤ δ, then [θ, α] ≤ [θ, γ] ∧ α ≤ δ ∧ α = β. Hence (β : α) = (δ : γ). For the second part we may again assume that α/β ր γ/δ. Moreover we may assume that β = 0. Since [α, α] ≤ β ≤ δ, α and δ permute by Theorem 6.2. Define a map τi : M(γ/δ, zi ) → M(α, zi ) as follows.

160


If x γ zi then, since γ = δ ◦ α, there is a y such that x δ y α zi . Moreover, since α ∧ δ = β = 0, y is unique. Let τi (x/δ) = y. To see that this is well defined suppose x δ x′ and that x δ y α zi and x′ δ y ′ α zi . Then y δ ∧ α y ′, i.e., y = y ′ and so τi is well defined. Now let τ : M(γ/δ) → M(α) be defined by τ (a)i = τi (ai ). To see that each τi , and hence τ , is one-to-one suppose that x, ′ x γ zi and τi (x/δ) = τi (x′ /δ) = y. Then x δ y α zi and x′ δ y α zi . This implies that x δ x′ so x/δ = x′ /δ. Now if y α zi then certainly y δ y α zi and y γ zi . Hence τi (y/δ) = y, and thus τi is onto. To see that τi , and hence τ , preserves addition let x, x′ ∈ zi /γ and let y = τi (x/δ) and y ′ = τi (x′ /δ). Then x δ y α zi and x′ δ y ′ α zi . It follows that d(x, zi , x′ ) δ d(y, zi, y ′) α d(zi , zi , zi ) = zi . So τi (d(x, zi , x′ )) = d(y, zi, y ′) which shows that τi preserves addition. To see that τ respect multiplication by elements of R we need to show that if r(u, v) ∈ Hij and x ∈ zi /γ then rj (r(x, z)) = r(τi (x), z). Let y = τi (x) so that xδyαzi . Then r(x, z) δ r(y, z) α r(zi , z) = zi , which implies that τj (r(x, z)) = r(y, z) = r(τi (x), z), completing the proof. 9.5. Let θ = Cg(a, b) ≤ β so that a β b. Let c = d(a, b, zi ) where a, b ∈ zi /γ. Then c = d(a, b, zi ) θ d(a, a, zi ) = zi . Let g(x) = d(x, zi , b). Then g(zi ) = b and g(c) = d(d(a, b, zi ), zi , b) = d(d(a, b, zi ), d(b, b, zi ), d(b, b, b)) = d(d(a, b, b), d(b, b, b), d(zi , zi , b)) = d(a, b, b) = a P Hence Cg(a, b) = Cg(c, zi ) (= θ). Let c ∈ M = M(β, zj ) denote th the vector with all 0’s except with c in the i coordinate. Let N = Rc be the cyclic module generated by c. Now x αN y if and only if x β y and if x, y ∈ zj /γ and we let v ∈ M be the vector whose ith coordinate is d(x, y, zj ) and whose other coordinates are 0, then v ∈ N. But then v = m · c for some m ∈ R. This implies that there is an r ∈ Hij such that r(c, z) = d(x, y, zj ). Since r(zi , z) = zj , we have that hd(x, y, zj ), zj i ∈ Cg(c, zi ) = Cg(a, b), i.e., αN ≤ Cg(a, b). But clearly c αN zi ; so that Cg(a, b) = αN . Hence Cg(a, b) corresponds to a cyclic submodule. Thus we have shown that in the isomorphism of β/0 onto L(M) the image of a principal congruence is a cyclic submodule. Hence the image of an n-generated congruence is an n-generated submodule. Of course, an element is compact in β/0 if and only if it is compact in Con A by upper continuity, and thus the isomorphism maps the set of compact element onto the set of finitely generated submodules.

CHAPTER 13

161

9.6. As in the proof of Proposition 9.4, if rij (u, v, y) ∈ Hji , the maps rij (u, v, y) 7→ rij (u, v, σ(y)) can be combined into a homomorphism, which we again denote by σ, from R(V, P λ, κ) onto R(V, λ). Let m = (mij ) be in R(V, λ, κ) and let a be in M(β, zi ). Then, by Theorem 9.7, m · a = (σm) · a. P Hence, if m is in the kernel of σ, m · a = (σm) · a = 0 for all a inP M(β, zi ) and thus m is in the kernel of the action of R(V, λ, κ) on M(β, zi ).

9.7. The maps ψ : M(β, zi ) → M(β, zi ) given by ψ(x) P= d(x, zi , zi ) can be combined in an obvious way to give a map ψ : M(β, zi ) → P M(β, zi′ ). To see that ψi , and hence ψ, preserves addition let x, x′ ∈ M(β, zi ). Then ψi (d(x, zi , x′ )) = d(d(x, zi , x′ ), zi , zi′ )

= d(d(x, zi , x′ ), d(zi , zi , zi ), d(zi′ , zi′ , zi′ )) = d(d(x, zi , zi′ ), d(zi , zi , zi′ ), d(x′ , zi , zi′ )) = d(ψi (x), zi′ , ψi (x′ )) as desired. The proof that ψ preserves R-multiplication and is a bijection is similar to the proof of Proposition 9.11. Chapter 10 10.1. Let β ≺ α in Con C and let δ be a completely meet irreducible element with δ ≥ β and δ 6≥ α. Let γ = δ ∗ = α ∨ δ be the unique cover 4 of Chapter 9. (β : α) = (δ : γ). V of δ. By Exercise ′ ′ Let ηi = j6=i ηj . If δ ≥ ηi then we can use induction on n to show that (δ : γ) ≥ ηj for some j. Thus we may assume that ηi , ηi′ 6≤ δ. Hence by the implication displayed in the proof of Theorem 10.1 we haveVthat ηi ≤ (δ : γ), as desired. The second part follows by letting θ = β≺α (β : α) ∈ Con B. As in Theorem 10.5, θ is nilpotent and by V the first part θ = ni=1 (θ ∨ ηi ). Chapter 13

˙ γ ⊆ β ⊕ γ. So suppose that 13.1. First we will show that β + ˙ γ so that there is a z and t such that x β z α2 y, x α2 t γ y hx, yi ∈ β + and z α1 t. Then x α2 t α1 z α2 y, so hx, yi ∈ α1 ∨ α2 . Since α1 ≤ α1 ∨ α3 = γ13 ∨ α3 and z α1 t, there is a w ∈ A such that z γ13 w α3 t. Now we have that x β z γ13 w and x α2 t α3 w.

162


so that hx, wi ∈ (β ∨ γ13 ) ∧ (α2 ∨ α3 ). Similarly hw, yi ∈ (γ ∨ α3 ) ∧ (α2 ∨ γ13 ). Hence hx, yi ∈ (β ∨ γ13 ) ∧ (α2 ∨ α3 ) ∨ (γ ∨ α3 ) ∧ (α2 ∨ γ13 ), proving that hx, yi ∈ β ⊕ γ. ˙ γ is a congruence. To see symmetry Next we observe that β + ˙ γ and that z and t are as above. Then suppose that hx, yi ∈ β + ˙ γ with z ′ = d(x, z, y) and t′ = d(x, t, y). Similarly β + ˙ γ hy, xi ∈ β + is transitive and it obviously respects the operations. Moreover α1 ≤ ˙ γ). To see this let hu, vi ∈ α1 . By hypothesis α1 ≤ β ∨ α2 and α2 ∨ (β + α1 ≤ γ ∨ α2 . Hence there are elements r and s with u β r α2 v, and ˙ γ. Now u α2 u α2 s γ v. By definition this implies that hr, si ∈ β + ˙ ˙ s β + γ r α2 v, showing that α1 ≤ α2 ∨ (β + γ). Since α2 ∧ (β ⊕ γ) = 0, ˙ γ) = 0. Since in a modular lattice comparable complements α2 ∧ (β + ˙ γ. are equal, β ⊕ γ = β + 13.2. First suppose that V satisfies ε3 , that {αi , γij } is an n-frame, n ≥ 3, in Con C, C ∈ V and that α1 ∧ α2 = 0. Let x γ12 z. Since γ12 ≤ α1 ∨ α2 there is a t with x α1 t α2 z. Since α1 ≤ α2 ∨ γ12 there is a y with x α2 y γ12 t. We have the situation indicated in Figure 1. y γ12 t α1 α2 x

z

Figure 1. Now we can apply Theorem 5.5(iii) with z for u′ and x for both y and u. By that theorem we have the relationships indicated in Figure 2. y

t α1 α2

d(x, z, y) x γ12 z Figure 2. Since γ12 ≤ α1 ∨ α2 there is an element t2 such that y α1 t2 α2 t. Similarly there is a y2 such that y α2 y2 γ12 t2 . By Theorem 5.5(iii) d(y, t, y) and the other elements satisfy the relations indicated in Figure 3. Clearly d(x, z, x) α2 d(y, t, y). Hence we can apply Theorem 5.5(iii) again to obtain the following relationships indicated in Figure 4, where 3 · x = d(x, z, d(x, z, x)).

CHAPTER 13

y2 d(y, t, y)

163

t2 y α1

t α2

d(x, z, y) x γ12 z Figure 3. y2 d(y, t, y)

t2 y α1

t α2

3 · x d(x, z, y) x γ12 z Figure 4. ˙ γ12 from the previous exercise. Now Recall the definition of γ12 + ˙ hy, zi ∈ γ12 + γ12 by taking x and t as the two auxiliary points required ˙ γ12 + ˙ γ12 in that definition. From this it follows that hz, y2 i ∈ γ12 + by taking y and t2 as auxiliary points. Since we are assuming ε3 , ˙ γ12 + ˙ γ12 = α1 . Thus y2 α1 z, and hence 3 · x α1 ∧ γ12 z; see γ12 + Figure 4. Since α1 ∧ γ12 = 0, z = 3 · x. Thus we have shown that the Abelian group M(γ12 , z) has exponent 3 or is trivial. Now suppose that θ is an arbitrary Abelian congruence on an algebra A, and let B = A(θ) = {hx, yi ∈ A2 : x θ y}. Then since θ is Abelian, the set {0, η0, η1 , ∆θ,θ , θ0 = θ1 } is isomorphic to M3 . Let C = {ha0 , . . . , an−1 i ∈ n A V : a0 θ a1 θ · · · θ an−1 }. Then it is not hard to verify that αi = j6=i ηj , γij = ∆ij ∧ (αi ∨ αj ) is an n-frame (with 0 for its index base) in Con C, where ∆ij = {hha0 , . . . , an−1 i, hb0 , . . . , bn−1 ii : hai , aj i ∆θ,θ hbi , bj i}. Now since θ0 /η0 and γ12 /0 are projective intervals, we have MA (θ, z) ∼ = MC (θ0 /η0 , hz, . . . , zi/η0 ) ∼ = MC (γ12 , hz, . . . , zi) by (the solution to) Exercise 4 of Chapter 9. Thus we have shown that M(θ, z) has exponent 3 for every (nontrivial) Abelian congruence θ. Now the elements of R(V) lie in an Abelian congruence (in the notation of Chapter 9, θ0 /[θ0 , θ0 ]) and their addition is inherited from the addition on M(θ/[θ, θ], v) (suppressing the zeros). Thus R(V) satisfies 1 + 1 + 1 = 0, as desired.

164


For the converse suppose that R(V) has characteristic 3 and let {αi , γij } be an n-frame in Con A, where A is in V. Let hz, y2 i ∈ ˙ γ12 + ˙ γ12 . Then there exist y, t2 ∈ A such that the relations γ12 + in Figure 4 hold for the four elements, z, y, y2 , t2 . By Lemma 13.1 and Theorem 6.2, α1 , α2 , and γ12 pairwise permute. From this it follows that there exists elements x and t as in Figure 4. Applying Theorem 5.5(iii) three times we have the full situation indicated in Figure 4. Of course γ12 /[γ12 , γ12 ] is an Abelian congruence and so has exponent 3 since R(V) has characteristic 3. Thus 3 · x [γ12 , γ12 ] z, and since [γ12 , γ12 ] ≤ α1 we have that 3 · z α1 z. Now we have that y2 α1 z; see ˙ γ12 + ˙ γ12 ≤ α1 which implies Figure 4. Thus we have shown that γ12 + ˙ ˙ that they are equal as above. Since γ12 + γ12 + γ12 = γ12 ⊕ γ12 ⊕ γ12 by the previous exercise, the characteristic of the ring of the frame is 3. Thus ε3 holds.

Bibliography [1] J. Baldwin and R. McKenzie, Counting models in universal horn classes, Algebra Universalis 15 (1982), 359–384. [2] C. Bergman, On the relationship of AP, RS and CEP in modular varieties, Algebra Universalis 22 (1986), 164–171. [3] Clifford Bergman, Another consequence of AP in residually small, congruence modular varieties, Houston J. Math. 14 (1988), no. 4, 451–464. [4] G. Birkhoff, On the structure of abstract algebras, Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 31 (1935), 433–454. [5] G. Birkhoff, Lattice theory, Amer. Math. Soc., 1967, 3rd ed., Colloquium Publications. [6] R. G. Burns and S. Oates-Williams, Varieties of groups and normal-subgroup lattices—a survey, Algebra Universalis 32 (1994), 145–152. [7] S. Burris, Boolean powers, Algebra Universalis 5 (1976), 341–360. [8] S. Burris and R. McKenzie, Decidability and boolean representations, Memoirs Amer. Math. Soc. 246 (1981). [9] S. Burris and R. McKenzie, Decidable varieties with modular congruence lattices, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 4 (1981), 350–352. [10] S. Burris and H. P. Sankappanavar, A course in universal algebra, SpringerVerlag, New York, 1981. [11] C. C. Chang, B. Jónsson, and A. Tarski, Refinement properties for relational structures, Fund. Math. 55 (1964), 249–281. [12] D. M. Clark and P. H. Krauss, Para-primal algebras, Algebra Universalis 6 (1976), 165–192. [13] D. M. Clark and P. H. Krauss, Varieties generated by para-primal algebras, Algebra Universalis 7 (1977), 93–114. [14] D. M. Clark and P. H. Krauss, Plain para primal algebras, Algebra Universalis 11 (1980), 365–388. [15] P. Crawley and R. P. Dilworth, Algebraic theory of lattices, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1973. [16] B. Csák´ any, Varieties of affine modules, Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged) 37 (1975), 3–10. [17] B. Csák´ any, Varieties of modules and affine modules, Acta Math. Acad. Sci. Hungar. 26 (1975), 263–266. [18] B. A. Davey and L. G. Kovács, Absolute subretracts and weak injectives in congruence-modular varieties, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 297 (1986), 181–196. [19] A. Day, A characterization of modularity for congruence lattices of algebras, Canad. Math. Bull. 12 (1969), 167–173. [20] A. Day, p–modularity implies modularity in equational classes, Algebra Universalis 3 (1973), 398–399. 165

166

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[21] A. Day, Splitting lattices generate all lattices, Algebra Universalis 7 (1977), 163–170. [22] A. Day and E. Kiss, Frames and rings in congruence modular varieties, J. Algebra 109 (1987), 479–507. [23] Alan Day and Ralph Freese, A characterization of identities implying congruence modularity, I, Canad. J. Math. 32 (1980), 1140–1167. [24] Ralph Freese, Minimal modular congruence varieties, Notices Amer. Math. Soc. 23 (1976), #76T–A181. [25] Ralph Freese, Planar sublattices of FM(4), Algebra Universalis 6 (1976), 69– 72. [26] Ralph Freese, Subdirectly irreducible algebras in modular varieties, Universal Algebra and Lattice Theory (R. Freese and O. Garcia, eds.), Springer-Verlag, New York, 1983, Lecture notes in Mathematics, vol. 1004, pp. 142–152. [27] Ralph Freese, On j´ onsson’s theorem, Algebra Universalis 18 (1984), 70–76. [28] Ralph Freese, William Lampe, and Walter Taylor, Congruence lattices of algebras of fixed similarity type, i, Pacific J. Math. 82 (1979), 59–68. [29] Ralph Freese and Ralph McKenzie, Residually small varieties with modular congruence lattices, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 264 (1981), 419–430. ˇ [30] E. Gedeonová, Jordan-h¨ older theorem for lines, Mat. Casopis Sloven. Akad. Vied. 22 (1972), 177–198. [31] Steven Givant, Universal Horn classes categorical or free in power, Ann. Math. Logic 15 (1978), no. 1, 1–53. [32] Steven Givant, A representation theorem for universal Horn classes categorical in power, Ann. Math. Logic 17 (1979), no. 1-2, 91–116. [33] G. Grätzer, General lattice theory, Academic Press, New York, 1978. [34] G. Grätzer, Universal algebra, second ed., Springer-Verlag, New York, 1979. [35] G. Grätzer, H. Lakser, and J. Plonka, Joins and direct products of equational classes, Canad. Math. Bull. 12 (1969), 741–744. [36] H. P. Gumm, u ¨ber die l¨ osungsmengen von gleichungsystemen u ¨ber allgemeinen algebren, Math. Z. 162 (1978), 51–62. [37] H. P. Gumm, Algebras in congruence permutable varieties: Geometrical properties of affine algebras, Algebra Universalis 9 (1979), 8–34. [38] H. P. Gumm, An easy way to the commutator in modular varieties, Arch. Math. 34 (1980), 220–228. [39] H. P. Gumm, The little desarquesian theorem for algebras in modular varieties, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 80 (1980), 393–397. [40] H. P. Gumm, Congruence modularity is permutability composed with distributiveity, Arhc. Math. (Basel) 36 (1981), 569–576. [41] H. P. Gumm, Geometrical methods in congruence modular algebras, 1983, Memoirs Amer. Math. Soc. [42] H. P. Gumm and Ch. Herrmann, Algebras in modular varieties: Baer refinements, cancellation and isotopy, Houston J. Math. 5 (1979), 503–523. [43] H. P. Gumm and A. Ursini, Ideals in universal algebras, Algebra Universalis 19 (1984), 45–54. [44] J. Hagemann and C. Herrmann, A concrete ideal multiplication for algebraic systems and its relation to congruence distributivity, Arch. Math. (Basel) 32 (1979), 234–245.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

167

[45] C. Herrmann, Affine algebras in congruence modular varieties, Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged) 41 (1979), 119–125. [46] C. Herrmann, On varieties of algebras having complemented modular lattices of congruences, Algebra Universalis 16 (1983), 129–130. [47] D. Hobby and R. McKenzie, The structure of finite algebras (tame congruence theory), Contemporary Mathematics, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1988. [48] A. P. Huhn, Schwach distributive verb¨ ande, I, Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged) 33 (1972), 297–305. [49] T. W. Hungerford, Algebra, Holt, Reinhart and Winston, Inc., New York, 1974. [50] B. Huppert, Endliche Gruppen. I, Die Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, Band 134, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1967. [51] G. Hutchinson and G. Czédli, A test for identities satisfied in lattices of submodules, Algebra Universalis 8 (1978), 269–309. [52] Nathan Jacobson, Basic algebra. II, second ed., W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1989. [53] B. Jónsson, The unique factorization problem for finite relational structures, Colloq. Math. 14 (1966), 1–32. [54] B. Jónsson, Algebras whose congruence lattices are distributive, Math. Scand. 21 (1967), 110–121. [55] E. Kiss, Injectivity and related concepts in modular varieties: I–II, Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 32 (1985), 35–53. [56] E. Kiss, Three remarks on the modular commutator, Algebra Universalis 29 (1992), 455–476. [57] E. W. Kiss, Complemented and skew congruences, Ann. Univ. Ferrara Sez. VII(N.S.) 29 (1983), 111–127. [58] E. W. Kiss, Finitely boolean representable varieties, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 89 (1983), 579–582. [59] H. Lakser, W. Taylor, and S. Tschantz, A new proof of gumm’s theorem, Algebra Universalis 20 (1985), 115–122. [60] W. A. Lampe, A property of the lattice of equational theories, Algebra Universalis 23 (1986), 61–69. [61] A. I. Maltsev, On the general theory of algebraic systems, Mat. Sbornik 77 (1954), 3–20 (Russian). [62] R. McKenzie, On minimal locally finite varieties with permuting congruence relations, never published, 1978. [63] R. McKenzie, Narrowness implies uniformity, Algebra Universalis 15 (1982), 67–85. [64] R. McKenzie, Residually small varieties of K-algebras, Algebra Universalis 14 (1982), 181–196. [65] R. McKenzie, Finite equational bases for congruence modular varieties, Algebra Universalis 24 (1987), 224–250. [66] Peter Mederly, Three Mal’cev type theorems and their application, Math. ˇ Casopis Sloven. Akad. Vied. 25 (1975), 83–95. [67] F. Osterman and J. Schmidt, Der baryzentrische Kalkul als axiomatische Grundlage der affinen Geometrie, J. Reine Angew. Math. 224 (1966), 44–57.

168

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[68] P. P. P´ alfy and C. Szab´ o, Congruence varieties of groups and abelian groups, Lattice Theory and its Applications (K. A. Baker and R. Wille, eds.), Heldermann Verlag, Lemgo, Germany, 1995, Darmstadt, Germany, June 13–17, 1991, pp. 163–184. [69] P. P. P´ alfy and C. Szab´ o, An identity for subgroup lattices of abelian groups, Algebra Universalis 33 (1995), 191–195. [70] E. A. Palyutin, Models with enumerably categorical universal theories, Algebra i Logika 10 (1971), 23–32. [71] E. A. Palyutin, Description of categorical quasivarieties, Algebra i Logika 14 (1975), no. 2, 145–185, 240. [72] A. F. Pixley, Completeness in arithmetical algebras, Algebra Universalis 2 (1972), 179–196. [73] A. F. Pixley, Local malcev conditions, Canad. Math. Bull. 15 (1972), 559–568. [74] S. V. Polin, Identities in congruence lattices of universal algebras, Mat. Zametki 22 (1977), 443–451 (Russian), transl. Math. Notes, 22(1977), 737–742. [75] R. W. Quackenbush, Demi-semi-primal algebras and mal’cev-type conditions, Math. Z. 122 (1971), 166–176. [76] R. W. Quackenbush, Algebras with minimum spectrum, Algebra Universalis 10 (1980), 117–129. [77] R. W. Quackenbush, A new proof of rosenberg’s primal algebra characterization theorem, Finite algebra and Multiple-valued logic (Szeged,1979), 1981, Colloq. Math. Soc. János Bolyai, pp. 603–634. [78] A. Rosenberg and D. zelinsky, Finiteness of the injective hull, Math. Z. 70 (1959), 372–380. [79] J. D. H. Smith, Mal’cev varieties, vol. 554, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Berlin, 1976. [80] W. Taylor, Characterizing mal’cev conditions, Algebra Universalis 3 (1973), 351–397. [81] M. R. Vaughan-Lee, Nilpotence in permutable varieties, Universal Algebra and Lattice Theory (R. Freese and O. Garcia, eds.), Springer-Verlag, New York, 1983, Lecture notes in Mathematics, vol. 1004, pp. 293–308. [82] R. Wille, Primitive subsets of lattices, Algebra Universalis 2 (1972), 95–98. [83] Pavol Zlatoˇs, Unitary congruence adjunctions, Lectures in universal algebra (Szeged, 1983), Colloq. Math. Soc. János Bolyai, vol. 43, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1986, pp. 587–647.

Index

k-step nilpotent, 47 k-step solvable, 47 n–frame, 115 4-difference term, 139

equivalent algebras, 12 finite type, 11 Fitting congruence, 92 free algebra, 14 fully invariant congruence, 126

Abelian, 35, 47 affine, 35 algebra, 11 Abelian, 35 affine, 35 linear, 86 quasiprimal, 109 algebraic, 13 annihilates, 22

Gumm difference term, 38 identity, 12 independent varieties, 106 interpretation, 11 interval, 13 isotopic, 111 kernel, 14

central, 47 centralize, 21 centralizes, 50 commutator, 7, 124 commutator word, 124 compact, 13 compactly generated, 13 completely meet irreducible, 13 congruence, 13 Abelian, 35 fully invariant, 126 congruence identity, 59 Cube Lemma, 18

locally finite, 14 Mal’cev condition, 15 Mal’cev term, 18 minimal variety, 109 modular, 14 modular variety, 14 monolith, 13 neutral, 68 nilpotent of class k, 47 normal subloop, 44 polynomial operations, 12 polynomially equivalent algebras, 12

Day terms, 16, 18 derived operations, 12 difference term, 38 discriminator variety, 109 distributive, 14 distributive variety, 14

quasiprimal, 109 quotient, 13 residuation, 33 Shifting Lemma, 16 similar

equation, 12 equational class, 12 169

170

θ in A to ψ in B, 92 algebras, 93 simple, 13 skew, 68 congruence, 68 strict refinement property, 69 strictly simple, 109 subdirectly irreducible, 13 term, 11 term condition, 10, 22 term operations, 12 ternary discriminator operation, 109 ternary group, 35 transpose, 14 type, 11 variety, 12 Abelian, 35

INDEX

Commutator theory for congruence modular varieties

Projective Varieties and Modular Forms

Cohomology of Drinfeld Modular Varieties

Cohomology of Drinfeld Modular Varieties

Modular invariant theory

Modular Invariant Theory

Modular invariant theory

Modular Representation Theory

Der Gehirn-Commutator

Analytic theory of Abelian varieties

Homology theory on algebraic varieties

Classification theory of polarized varieties

Abelian varieties with complex multiplication and modular functions

Inverse Commutator Subgroups

Der Gehirn-Commutator

Der Gehirn-Commutator

Abelian Varieties with Complex Multiplication and Modular Functions

Algorithms For Modular Elliptic Curves

Lefschetz theorem for toric varieties

Modular Representation Theory. New Trends and Methods

Fixed Point Theory in Modular Function Spaces

G-algebras and modular representation theory

Hilbert Modular Forms and Iwasawa Theory

Modular Representation Theory. New Trends and Methods

Hilbert Modular Forms and Iwasawa Theory

Modular units

Moduli Theory and Classification Theory of Algebraic Varieties

Modular Invariants

Mal'cev Varieties

Abelian varieties

Toric varieties

Commutator theory for congruence modular varieties

Projective Varieties and Modular Forms

Cohomology of Drinfeld Modular Varieties

Cohomology of Drinfeld Modular Varieties

Modular invariant theory

Modular Invariant Theory

Modular invariant theory

Modular Representation Theory

Der Gehirn-Commutator

Analytic theory of Abelian varieties

Homology theory on algebraic varieties

Classification theory of polarized varieties

Abelian varieties with complex multiplication and modular functions

Inverse Commutator Subgroups

Der Gehirn-Commutator

Der Gehirn-Commutator

Abelian Varieties with Complex Multiplication and Modular Functions

Algorithms For Modular Elliptic Curves

Lefschetz theorem for toric varieties

Modular Representation Theory. New Trends and Methods

Fixed Point Theory in Modular Function Spaces

G-algebras and modular representation theory

Hilbert Modular Forms and Iwasawa Theory

Modular Representation Theory. New Trends and Methods

Hilbert Modular Forms and Iwasawa Theory

Modular units

Moduli Theory and Classification Theory of Algebraic Varieties

Modular Invariants

Mal'cev Varieties

Abelian varieties

Toric varieties

Recommend Documents